EU AND THE ASIA PACIFIC: Measuring the effectiveness of

EU AND THE ASIA PACIFIC:

Measuring the effectiveness of

disaster risk reduction programming

in relation to child protection.

A thesis submitted in fulfilment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in European Studies

GENEVIEVE TAYLOR

NATIONAL CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON EUROPE

UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY

NEW ZEALAND

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

________________________________________

This research would not have been possible without the continuous support, and

the guidance of supervisor, colleague, and partner in crime, Dr. Katharine

Vadura. I am so appreciative of all the advice you have given me over the last

five years, which has reinforced the formation of this thesis, and accompanying

research.

This thesis would also not have been possible without the support of the

National Centre for Research on Europe, at the University of Canterbury. Thank

you all the staff (academic and administrative) for the encouragement, and for

providing me with experiences throughout the course of this thesis to enhance

my skills and qualifications. To the students (past and present), whom I have

met through my time at the NCRE, thanks for all the laughs, and opportunities

for ‘thesis rants’ when much needed.

Finally, I am enormously grateful to Paul, my family, and friends, who have

supported me in my research, and the formation of this thesis. While it has been

a lot of fun, the journey has not been an easy one at times, but it would have

been much more difficult without your assistance and encouragement.

iv

CONTENTS

___________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii.

CONTENTS iv.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vii.

LIST OF ACRONYMS ix.

ABSTRACT xi.

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 A PREAMBLE ON PROTECTIONISM 1

1.2 THE RESEARCH PUZZLE 12

1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 15

Methodological triangulation 16

Validity concerns 26

1.5 THE THESIS OUTLINE 29

CHAPTER II THE STUDY IN CONTEXT 31

2.1 INTRODUCTION 31

Selected disaster risk management lexis & praxis 31

Underlying lexis and praxis in the EU institutionalisation of DRR 38

2.2 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S INSTITUTIONAL 43

APPROACH TO DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

2.3 FOREIGN POLICY PRAXIS TOWARDS 57

DRR PROGRAMMING

2.4 COMMUNITY-BASED RISK MANAGEMENT 65

2.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 78

CHAPTER III RE-CONCEPTUALISING 81

THE HUMAN SECURITY MODEL

3.1 INTRODUCTION 81

The human security model 81

v

3.2 A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO DRR 88

Framing child rights 97

3.3 RECOGNING SOCIAL VULNERABILITY IN DRR 103

PROGRAMMING THROUGH HUMAN SECURITY


CHAPTER IV IDENTIFYING RIGHTS-BASED APPROACHES IN 127

EU & MEMBER STATE DRR POLICY LEXIS

4.1 INTRODUCTION 127

4.2 THE SCOPE OF LEXICAL ANALYSIS 128

4.3 LEXIS TOWARDS CHILD RISK AND CHILD RIGHTS 141

IN EU & MEMBER STATE POLICY FORMATION

Lexis representing child risks 141

Lexis representing child rights 147


CHAPTER V EU DRR INSTITUTIONALISATION 161

& PARTNER DIALOGUE


5.2 TRENDS OF EU PARTNERSHIPS IN DRR PROJECT 163

IMPLEMENTATION

EU FPA partner trends 165

FPA activity trends 168

5.3 FISCAL MATTERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN 172

EU DRR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION


CHAPTER VI LOCALISATION OF CHILD PROTECTION IN 192

DRR PROGRAMMING IN THE ASIA PACIFIC


6.2 EU AS A PROMOTER OF DRR IN THE ASIA PACIFIC 192

6.3 GOVERNANCE IN DRM IN THE ASIA PACIFIC 203

vi

6.4 COMMUNITY-LEVEL DRR PROGRAMMING 218


CHAPTER VII REFLECTIONS ON RESEARCH FINDINGS & 233

PROSPECTIVE PATHS


7.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS 234

Manifestations of risk 235

The role of lexis and praxis in operationalising child rights 236

Effective implementation of EU-facilitated DRR praxis 239

7.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 245

APPENDIX I MAP OF THE ASIA PACIFIC 249

APPENDIX II COMPONENTS OF THE RIGHTS-BASED IMPACT 250

ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX III INTERVIEW DATA COLLATION 256

BIBLIOGRAPHY 261

vii

TABLES AND FIGURES

______________________________________

TABLES

Table 1.1 Policy Profiling as part of methodological triangulation 19

for the human rights impact assessments of EU DRR

programming.

Table 1.2 DRR praxis data collation as part of methodological 20

triangulation for the human rights impact assessments of

EU DRR programming.

Table 1.3 DRR interview data collation as part of methodological 24

triangulation for the human rights impact assessments of

EU DRR programming.

Table 3.1 Comparative assessment of dominant and vulnerability views 107

of disasters.

Table 4.1 Thematic classification of European Commission policy profiling. 132

Table 4.2 Member State foreign policy formation from 2003-2012 133

corresponding to a rights-based approach to DRR.

Table 7.1 Research findings from human rights impact assessments for 242

lexis and praxis in EU DRR policy and programming.

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Intertwining a rights-based approach & use of data 28

to address focal research questions.

Figure 2.1 DRR and the disaster cycle. 32

Figure 2.2 EU Management of DRR and the disaster cycle. 47

Figure 2.3 Attitudes of European FPA partners towards the 50

EU institutional structure for DRR programming.

Figure 2.4 Cause and effect of overlooking DRR in foreign policy. 58

Figure 2.5 Priorities of the HFA. 62

Figure 2.6 In-country views on the HFA as an implementing tool for DRR. 63

Figure 2.7 CBDRM model based on the HFA priorities. 66

Figure 2.8 The disaster cycle and the HFA priorities. 68

Figure 2.9 Views on addressing social risks and the vulnerability of children 68

in the HFA.

viii

Figure 2.10 Partner perspectives of donor facilitation of sustainable DRR 70

programming.

Figure 3.1 Interrelationship between natural disasters, social vulnerability 112

and DRR.

Figure 3.2 Conceptual model based on human rights, human security & 123

social vulnerability to create a comprehensive DRR policy

formation.

Figure 3.3 A comprehensive theoretical and methodological framework for 124

assessing EU partnerships in DRR in the Asia Pacific.

Figure 4.1 Proportion of European Commission policies applicable 130

to child-centric DRR.

Figure 4.2 Thematic policies of European Union Member States. 134

Figure 4.3 Representation of rights across EEAS, DG ECHO, 136

and DG DEVCO.

Figure 4.4 EU approach to needs and rights in DG DEVCO and 137

DG ECHO policy lexis.

Figure 4.5 Mentions of EU lexis towards child rights in policy formation 150

in adherence with UNCRC.

Figure 4.6 Mentions of Member State lexis towards child rights in policy 154

formation in adherence with UNCRC.

Figure 5.1 The annual budgets for DIPECHO. 174

Figure 6.1 Views of donorship in the Asia Pacific. 193

Figure 6.2 Cost-efficiency in Asia Pacific donorship. 198

Figure 6.3 Human rights & conditionalities in DRR programming in 201

the Asia Pacific.

Figure 6.4 Views of in-country DRR governance. 203

Figure 6.5 The influence of partnerships and local actors on in-country 210

governance.

Figure 6.6 Community Disaster Committees. 217

Figure 6.7 Community-level DRR programming. 219

Figure 6.8 Integration of traditional and contemporary approaches 222

to community- based DRR.

Figure 6.9 Child Protection in community-based DRR programming. 225

Figure 7.1 Implementation process through a rights-based approach. 236

Figure 7.2 Future-proofing through risk-rights interconnectivity in DRR 237

implementation.

ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS

_____________________________________

AICHR ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission for Human Rights

ACP Africa Caribbean Pacific Group of States

AFET European Parliament Committee for Foreign Affairs

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CBDRM Community-based Disaster Risk Management

CBDRR Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction

CDC Community Disaster Committees

CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DEVE European Parliament Committee for Development

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

DG Directorate General

DG DEVCO Directorate General for development and cooperation (DEVCO)

DG ECHO Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection

DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

EC European Community

ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office

ECHR European Court of Human Rights

EEAS European External Action Service

ENVI European Parliament Committee for the Environment,

Public Health and Safety

EU European Union

FPA Framework Partnership Agreements

FTS Financial Tracking Service

x

GHD Good Humanitarian Donorship

HFA Hyogo Framework Agreement

NDMO National Disaster Management Office

NGO Non-government Organisation

ODA Official Development Aid

PIF Pacific Island Forum

SOPAC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Applied Geoscience and Technology Division

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

TA Technical Assistance

UN United Nations

UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(Disaster Risk Reduction)

UN OCHA United Nations Office for Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs

(OCHA)

VHT Vanuatu Humanitarian Team

xi

ABSTRACT

____________________________________

This thesis employs a rights-based approach to evaluate the effectiveness of European Union

(EU) external action policy formation and subsequent measures to protect children in a

disaster risk context, in the Asia Pacific. Advances in human rights discourse and

humanitarian responsibilities have led to a review of the concept of protection, and how it is

applied in humanitarian and development assistance. Indeed, a rights-based approach to

donorship centres on the obligations of duty bearers to uphold the rights of those at risk when

carrying out humanitarian and development assistance, while ensuring implementation

practices are accountable and transparent, to maximise donorship effectiveness.

The fundamental components of upholding human rights, and reducing vulnerability, are

intrinsic to the model of human security. Human security therefore assists in the analysis of

protectionism through the embedded methodology of lexis-praxis where humanitarian and

development policy formation, or lexis, and subsequent implementation channels, or praxis,

contribute towards the measurement of the effectiveness of donor partnerships to implement

disaster risk reduction programming (DRR), as a foreign policy objective.

The EU is an excellent case study for the analysis of cohesion in policy implementation and

an evaluation of the potential need for the harmonisation of lexis in policy formation.

Harmonisation of policy lexis and policy formation will lead to coherence in praxis, or the

implementation measures of the EU and Member States to enact policy obligations. To

explore this notion further, this research employs a rights-based approach to analyse EU and

Member State policy and practice, in the goal of upholding child rights, and reducing child

risks, as part of donorship responsibilities. In addition, partner roles, responsibilities, and

actions in the Asia Pacific, add another layer of analysis to review DRR policy and practice

both regionally and in-country.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

_______________________________________

1.1 A PREAMBLE ON PROTECTIONISM

“You’ll find that by the definition of protection...is making a protective

environment. That is the definition we use, and we are focussed on that,

and within that protective environment, disaster risk is enframed in there

– it may not be: ‘when a disaster happens - this, this,’ but the legal

systems which you provide are meant to reduce the vulnerability and the

risk to anything, including disasters. ” 1

The concept of protectionism has rapidly expanded over the last century. Representations of

protectionism have shifted from the realms of warfare to embrace the need to protect

vulnerable populations in other spheres of vulnerability, including health, technology,

humanitarianism, development, and environment. The broadening of the scope of

protectionism has been triggered by the expansion of international human rights law. An

individual or group can now enjoy not only political and civil rights but also cultural, social

and economic rights,2 shifting human rights discourse from a domestic to an international

arena.

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination

to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against

any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any

incitement to such discrimination.”

Article VII, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.3

1 Interview excerpt, UN Agency, 16/10/2012.

2 Elizabeth G. Ferris, The politics of protection: the limits of humanitarian action (Washington, D.C: Brookings

Institute Press, 2011), 3. 3 United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Right, 10 December 1948, 217A (III), Article VII.

2

In turn, there is a duty of states and organisations within the international community to

protect and support the fulfilment of individual rights if they are able to do so.4 In recognition

of their responsibilities as part of the international community, 192 leaders at the 2005 United

Nations (UN) World Summit acknowledged that where state administrations were guilty of

domestic human rights abuses, the international community were obligated to implement

“collective action in a timely and decisive manner,”5 in order to protect those at risk, and

provide assistance through humanitarian action.6 Cases of global human rights abuses have

meant the rights of individuals to assistance and protection have become an obligation of the

international community.7 Barkin points to the UN doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect,’

8

in modifying the roles of duty bearers from a national to global context,9 confirming the

international obligations of donors to uphold the underlying principles of human security,

where protectionism and empowerment support reduced vulnerability. To assist in avoiding

human rights abuses, state-centric policy interests shift to a focus on human dignity, and the

security of individuals as the primary objective.10

The human security model requires that

duty bearers uphold their obligations, whether national or international, towards rights and

reducing vulnerability, through policy and practice. In addition, human security identifies the

responsibilities of donors to protect individuals and their rights in international assistance.11

In foreign policy, advances in human rights discourse and humanitarian responsibilities have

led to a review of the concept of protection and how it is applied in humanitarian and

4 See A Woodiwiss, “Taking the sociology of human rights seriously,” in Interpreting human rights – social

science perspective, eds. R Morgan and B S Turner (London; New York: Routledge, 2009), 117; A Kuper,

Global Responsibilities: who must deliver on human rights? (Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2005); O O’Neill,

Towards Justice and Virtue: A constructive account of practical reasoning, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press,1996). 5 2005 World Summit Outcome, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005,

Paragraph 139, as cited in Roberta Cohen, 2012. “From Sovereign responsibility to R2P,” in The Routledge

Handbook on R2P, eds. W Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 8. 6 Roberta Cohen, 2012. “From Sovereign responsibility to R2P,” in The Routledge Handbook on R2P, eds. W

Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 8. 7 Roberta Cohen, 2012. “From Sovereign responsibility to R2P,” in The Routledge Handbook on R2P, eds. W

Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 7. 8 United Nations, 2005 World Summit Outcome [A/60/L.1], (United Nations: New York, 2005).

9 Barkin, J. Samuel, International Organization: Theories and Institutions, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

2013), 71. 10

Barkin, J. Samuel, International Organization: Theories and Institutions, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,

2013), 70. 11

Eric A. Belgrad, “The Politics of Humanitarian Aid,” in The Politics of international humanitarian aid

operations, eds. Eric A. Belgrad and Nitza Nachmias, (Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger, 1997), 3.

3

development assistance. Indeed, protection and empowerment of those at risk are central to a

rights-based approach to donorship.

According to the international discourse on human security, the obligations of duty bearers to

uphold the rights of individuals and groups surround the protection and empowerment of

those most vulnerable, such as children. What can differ, however, are duty bearers’

perceptions of child protection and empowerment as facets of child rights. Perceptions of

protectionism and empowerment from actors at the various levels of governance, whether

donors, partner agencies, state administrations, non-state actors, community actors, and

individuals themselves, can influence a child’s general wellbeing and prospects, regardless of

their country’s level of development. In addition to the context within which children reside,

variations exist of what protection represents to policy makers and stakeholders, and the

responsibilities of actors towards upholding child rights. This variation in policy will

ultimately lead to discrepancies in practice across countries, donors, and partner agencies.

The underlying concept of protectionism denotes the responsibilities of international actors to

respond to existing vulnerability, but often with a focus on victimhood, and a limited

understanding of the autonomy individuals command in their actions and wellbeing. A rights-

based approach to donorship can incorporate protection and the empowerment of those at risk,

particularly children,12

as supported by the model of human security. This research is

informed by the theoretical fundamentals of the human security model, which assumes a

rights-based approach to policy formation and subsequent implementation, as promoted by

Ogata and Cels.13

The model of human security provides a theoretical framework for

analysing protectionism and empowerment as part of humanitarian and development

assistance in donorship. However as Merry suggests, it could be argued the focus on the

responsibility of humanitarian actors to facilitate the empowerment of the most vulnerable

through educational means deviates from encouraging the agency of vulnerable groups to

12

Hart et al., “A new age for child protection – general comment 13: why it is important, how it was constructed

and what it intends?” Child Abuse and neglect 35, (2011): 970-978. 13

Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, “Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People,” Global

Governance 9, no. 3 (2003): 273.

4

engage in decision-making processes.14

Indeed, Sen looks to the capabilities of individuals to

act where capabilities complement a rights-based approach, highlighting the need to recognise

capabilities as one of the obligations of upholding human rights.15

Nussbaum builds on Sen’s

perspective on human rights and capabilities, through the exploration of the capabilities

approach, drawing on a person’s agency and the relationship between agency, freedom and

wellbeing.16

To explore this notion further, this research analyses views on child

protectionism and agency of children, in upholding child rights through donorship practices.

By underpinning foreign policy practices with the model of human security, Kaldor et al.

allude to the effective use of multilateral, regional and national channels in donorship.17

In

doing so, use of these channels assists in reducing individual and collective vulnerability.18

While the inclusion of social aspects and protection in humanitarian policy formation renders

cohesive policy formation and implementation of practice amongst donors more demanding,

in the long-term, a comprehensive approach to vulnerability leads to more effective policy

implementation. This is particularly applicable to donorship in the reduction of disaster risk

within the spheres of humanitarian and development assistance.

This thesis evaluates child protection measures as part of EU donorship in the Asia Pacific

from a rights-based approach, to measure the effectiveness of its disaster risk reduction

(DRR) programming. The concept and practice of DRR has yet to be evaluated in depth

through the lens of human security. In doing so, there is an evaluation of whether lexis used in

policy formation assists in foreign policy praxis, or practical applications of policy. More

specifically, a rights-based approach to the formation of policy and implementation practices

focusses on child rights, and specific measures of child protectionism in order to achieve the

goal of reducing the vulnerability of children surrounding a natural disaster through DRR

programming. By placing a focus on the protection of children and the rights of children in

14

Sally E Merry, “Conditions of Vulnerability,” in The practice of Human rights, eds. Mark Goodale and Sally

Engle Merry (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 202. 15

Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development 6, no. 2 (2005): 152. 16

Martha C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities, (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

2011), 201. 17

Mary Kaldor, M Martin, and S Selchow, “Human Security: a new strategic narrative for Europe,”

International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 281. 18

See Astrid Suhrke, “Human Security and the interests of states,” Security Dialogue 30 (1999), 265-76, as cited

in Amitav Acharya, “Human Security: East versus West,” International Journal 56, no. 3, (2001), 447.

5

policy formation and practice, this study enables an insight into the EU and Member State

approaches to protectionism and human rights in foreign policy, and specific foreing policy

mechanisms such as DRR programming.

DRR can be a part of humanitarian assistance following an emergency, or undertaken as

general development aid. In a March 2012 report on the realities of disaster risk reduction aid

as a portion of ODA, Kellet and Sparks analysed statistical data surrounding DRR as a facet

of ODA worldwide.19

To discover to what extent global ODA embraced DRR programming,

Kellet and Sparks’ reported the realities of DRR aid as a portion of ODA worldwide. Their

analysis depicted that of the US$363 billion of development aid, only US$3.7 billion was

allocated to DRR programming in the top 40 recipients, which represents barely 1% of the

total global development aid.20

Moreover, DRR funding does not appear to be spread across

many countries, or many projects. According to the report, the majority of expenditure from

the period 2000-2009 was afforded to four of the top recipient countries (Bangladesh, India,

Indonesia, and Pakistan), and in the period following the 2004 tsunami spending was

dominated by large individual projects:

“There is further concern, looking beyond overall annual

volumes of DRR financing, as those volumes hide not just

variability but also very high concentrations of investments in

just a few contexts. The aid trends over the decade do not

show a sudden increase in expenditures from 2005 through to

2007, such as may be influenced by the lessons learned after

the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004. There is no sudden general

increase in the amount of funding going to countries in need.

Rather, the increases are much more about single large

projects that dominate overall spending.” 21

19

Jan Kellett, and Dan Sparks, Disaster Risk Reduction: Spending Where It Should Count." edited by Global

Humanitarian Assistance (Wells: Development Initiatives, 2012). 20

Ibid. 21

Ibid, 10, 15.

6

While an important statistical disclosure in terms of the minimal amount spent on DRR within

ODA, the report did not elucidate further the categories of DRR programming. It would be

applicable to examine the general orientation of global aid given to DRR projects whether for

community capacity building, technical assistance, policy development, or vulnerability

focussed projects – such as disability or child centred programming- in order to distinguish

between popular aid choices, and those areas disregarded.

Efforts to reduce the risks of those found in areas such as the Asia Pacific are increasing

through DRR programming in foreign policies and actions of donors and humanitarian and

development organisations. Yet these DRR activities can overlook the human aspect

necessary to foreign policies, and focus on reducing risks to administrative structures, or

simply the construction of buildings. Given the very recent development of the EU’s own

DRR policy, there is very little available literature exploring whether ECHO’s policies and

partnerships in DRR programming have been effective.22

The primary investigation of this research relates to DRR policy implementation and

programming as a component of EU foreign policy. Overarching international relations

theories such as neo-liberalism, constructivism and realism apply to the foreign policy aspects

of this research, yet remain broad and fail to address the focal points of this research.

Moreover, general EU foreign policy literature is often presented as a narrative of EU policy

formation, rather than a theoretical insight into the application of current and future policies.23

Certain EU scholars look to normative power to examine EU values in external action, such as

democratic conditionality and human rights. Normative power theory considers that states and

other international actors formulate estimations of the EU based on what it stands for, rather

than its civilian and military capabilities, paying attention to what it says or does.24

The

European Union exists in a different manner than any other political body in the international

22

See I Wilderspin et al., “Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming in DG ECHO’s humanitarian

actions: Final Report,” 20 June 2008,

http://www.ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2008/DRRMainstreaming.pdf Accessed: 15 July 2011;

Nigel Taylor and Sarah La Trobe, Transforming the Commitment into Action: EU progress with mainstreaming

disaster risk reduction. (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2006). 23

Michèle Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen, Understanding the European Union’s External Relations (London:

Routledge, 2003), 2. 24

Ibid.

http://www.ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2008/DRRMainstreaming.pdf

7

arena in that, as Manners and Whitman explain, the upholding of EU values, as requirements

for membership and the amalgamation of national sovereignty, have become ‘constitutive

norms’ of EU polity.25

The manifestation of EU Member States uniting through common

values is not a new initiative, given the very foundations of the Community are based on unity

through trade. Smith suggests that the fulfilment of Member States’ priorities in exchange for

compliance on other issues is common place in EU engagements, yet despite this, when it

comes to EU external action, ‘common interests’ and political cooperation are encouraged.26

As the EU strives to be further recognised as an influential actor in global affairs,27

there have

been examinations of the EU as a ‘normative power,’ such as through the work of Manners

and Whitman in examining EU foreign policy, and the interaction with member states’ foreign

policies.28

Given the EU’s dissimilarity from other states or global actors vis-à-vis its

existence, values and subsequent legislation, the EU is able to contradict what has been

typically considered as ‘normal’ when influencing global politics.29

This gives the EU

potentially a great deal of power when it wishes to be taken seriously as an actor in

international events, and also through its external actions, whether on a multilateral, regional

or on a bilateral basis, as promoted by the human security model.

Over recent years, there has also been scrutiny over the translation of the supranational

entity’s stance on human rights in an international context.30

Holland and Doidge examine the

cohesion of Member States’ domestic policies with EU policies, in addition to an exploration

25

Ian Manners and Richard Whitman, “The “Difference Engine”: Constructing and Representing the

International Identity of the European Union,” Journal of European Public Policy vol. 10, no. 3 (2003): 389. 26

Michael E. Smith, “Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU foreign policy cooperation,” Journal of

European Public Policy 7, no. 4. (2000): 615. 27

See Christopher Hill, “The Future of the European Union as a Global Actor’, in eds. Paolo Foradori, Paolo

Rosa, and Riccardo Scartezzini, Managing a Multilevel Foreign Policy: The EU in International

Affairs (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2007); Hanns W. Maull, “Europe and the new balance of global order,”

International Affairs 18, no. 4 (2005): 775-799; Michele Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen, ”Puzzles and prospects

in theorizing the EU’s External Relations,” in Understanding the European Union’s External Relations, eds. M

Knodt and S Princen, (London; New York: Routledge, 2003). 28

Ian Manners, and Richard Whitman, “The “Difference Engine”: Constructing and Representing the

International Identity of the European Union,” Journal of European Public Policy vol. 10, no. 3 (2003): 380-

404; Ian Manners and Richard G. Whitman, The Foreign Policies of European Union Member States,

(Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000); S Lucarelli and I Manners, Values and Principles in

European Union foreign policy, (London; New York, Routledge, 2006). 29

Ibid,389-390. 30

Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira, “Human Rights, Peace and Democracy: Is ‘Model Power Europe’ a contradiction in

terms?” in F Bindi The foreign policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s role in the world,

(Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2010).

8

of the institutional organisation for EU external action, and the role of EU principles in

subsequent action, including a brief discussion on the role of human rights in the EU’s

implementation of its development policy.31

Analysis of humanitarian policy and practice to

reduce the vulnerability of individuals, therefore, leads to an improved understanding of how

the EU is promoting itself as a global player and the principle of respecting human rights.32

This research shifts the focus of values in EU foreign policy from normative theory,33

by

looking to reinforce EU values, specifically human rights, within practical examples of human

security policy implementation and external strategies to influence change. 34

Kaldor et al.

maintain that human security when based on enhanced human rights, can translate from a

political concept into proactive measures by states.35

The aim of this study is to assess the

influence of those values, namely human rights, in the effectiveness of partnerships between

various actors involved in humanitarian, development and disaster programming in reducing

human rights abuses surrounding a disaster. These partners aim to generate enhanced

resilience both to disasters and human rights abuses, transcending dialogue at the international

level to real-time coordination at a local level. Consequently, normative EU theory is

31

Martin Holland and Matthew Doidge, Development Policy of the European Union, (Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2012). 32

Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira, “Human Rights, Peace and Democracy: Is ‘Model Power Europe’ a contradiction in

terms?” in F Bindi The foreign policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s role in the world.

Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2010), 290; M Kaldor, “The EU as a New Form of Political Authority:

An Example of the Common Security and Defence Policy,” Global Policy 3, no. 1 (2010): 80. 33

See Ian Manners, “Normative Power Europe: a contradiction in terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies

40, no 2 (2002): 235-258; Ian Manners and Richard Whitman, “The “Difference Engine”: Constructing and

Representing the International Identity of the European Union,” Journal of European Public Policy 10, no. 3,

(2003): 380-404; Ian Manners, “The normative ethics of the European Union.’ International Affairs84, no 1

(2008), 45-60. 34

Ian Manners, a key scholar on EU normative power, has touched on child rights in an external context,

particularly in his work, “The EU’s international promotion of the rights of the child,” in J Orbie and L Tortell,

The European Union and the Social Dimension of Globalization: How the EU Influences the World, (London:

Routledge, 2008), where Manners discusses universal child rights in an internal EU context, or externally in

relation to manmade disasters. Manners also looks to the EU as a normative power in respect to rights and social

features of EU external trade policies norms in Ian Manners, “The Social Dimension of EU Trade Policies:

Reflections from a Normative Power Perspective,” European Foreign Affairs Review 14 (2009):785-803, but the

discussion on rights remains mainly at a principle and policy level. In Ian Manners, “European Union

‘Normative Power’ and the Security Challenge,” European Security 15, no. 4 (2006): 405-421, Manners also

provides his perspective on the model of human security – referencing the specific rights of ‘freedom from fear’,

and ‘freedom from want,’ but with a strong military context. In comparison, this research looks to human

security to provide a holistic approach to rights and practical applications of rights surrounding diverse

insecurities. 35


International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 274.

9

considered unsuitable for this particular study, and is replaced with a more interactive

theoretical model, human security.

To evaluate the effectiveness of policy formation and subsequent action of donors in a disaster

risk context in reducing child risks, and acknowledging child rights, European Union (EU)

external action is analysed. The EU is an excellent case study for the analysis of cohesion in

policy implementation and an evaluation of the potential need for the harmonisation of lexis in

policy formation, and coherence in external action. As a supranational power, the EU

endeavours to harmonise the now 28 Member States’ policy objectives into one common

perspective, not least in international affairs, including the provision of humanitarian and

development aid surrounding natural disasters.36

Harmonisation of policy lexis and policy

formation will lead to coherence in praxis, or the implementation measures of the EU and

Member States to enact policy obligations.

The staunch stance of the EU’s humanitarian arm as an independent and autonomous body

also assists in disregarding national interests of Member States in order to express common

values and through the pursuit of the common goal of providing third countries with

humanitarian assistance. Sjursen supports this, stating the EU model for external action is

gradually becoming more influential in the formation of national foreign policies.37

Yet when

considering the humanitarian and DRR policies of Member States, in spite of the influence of

supranational foreign policies, the safeguarding of humanitarian values in national

humanitarian and disaster-related policies is called into question. Regardless of the European

foreign policy instruments compelling Member States to adhere to certain values or goals,

often the corresponding national legislation do not outwardly depict those same principles.

Rather than concentrating on the role of human rights, and specifically child rights, as an

European norm to be represented in European foreign policy, this research centres on the

EU’s enactment of upholding human rights as a principle pivotal to its objectives in foreign

36

The timeframe for data collection for this research is within the period of 2002-2012. Therefore, policy

profiling does not include new Member State Croatia, but explores changes in policy by the former 27 Member

States. 37

Helene Sjursen, “Understanding the common foreign and security policy: Analytical building blocks,” in

Understanding the European Union’s External Relations, eds. Michèle Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen. (London:

Routledge, 2003): 50.

10

policy formation, and practical translations of that principle in the specific EU external action

mechanisms. This is best reflected in the partnerships between the EU, its Member States, and

external partners to implement DRR policies and subsequent programming.

This study therefore also adds to the field of European studies in practical terms by evaluating

the effectiveness of partnerships between the EU and humanitarian actors through the

investment and implementation of local DRR programming, an area yet to be fully explored

in academic literature. To evaluate the effectiveness of partnerships exclusively, this study has

accrued circumstantial, financial, and organisational data related to DRR programming in the

Asia Pacific region. There are several FPAs partners indicating partner involvement through

project outlines on their websites. Linkages primarily focus on UN agencies, other

international organisations, or in several cases, corporate partners to assist in carrying out

FPA activities. Throughout the FTS data, several projects indicate there are various partners

involved, rather than having a primary organisation in charge of project implementation. In

such cases, it is unsure which agencies are the partnering organisations, making it complex for

project evaluation, and funding trails from EU mechanisms. Despite a limited recognition of

partners assisting project implementation by child-centric FPA partners in the Asia Pacific

region, data collation for this research has shown there is a multitude of local organisations

carrying out activities in the region, with the capacity to assist these European-based

organisations. Collaborations between international and locally-based organisations enhance

the legitimacy of the project where resident organisations often have a better understanding of

local milieu. This can be in terms of the physical hazards faced, the political environment, and

the physical and social vulnerabilities adding to forthcoming risks surrounding a disaster. In

turn, the support of local organisations assists in the administrative aspects of project

implementation, in particular the assessments, monitoring, evaluation, and subsequent

dissemination of the project outcomes.

This thesis therefore draws on the embedded methodology of lexis-praxis emphasised by the

model of human security to measure the effectiveness of policy formation, by analysing the

partnerships to implement foreign policy objectives. There has been limited recognition of

11

human rights-based approaches to disasters, 38

but with a lack of acknowledgement of the

interrelationship between rights and risk, despite the need to recognise both throughout the

disaster cycle. In its 2013 report, the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk

Reduction (UNISDR) stated the ‘modus operandi’ for building resilience was revolved around

the strengthening of partnerships and empowerment of stakeholders.39

While multi-

stakeholder engagement and the utilisation of all channels of implementation are pivotal to a

rights-based approach, the above objective from the UNISDR brings with it uncertainty over

what ‘empowerment’ represents, and the roles of actors in the processes surrounding DRR for

it to be effective, and contextually relevant. The responsibilities of actors, not least donors,

involved in DRR programming centres also on the recognition of the rights of those at risk,

whether in the protection or engagement of individuals and groups in DRR decision-making

processes. In this study, the human security model is employed to assess whether there has

been a filtration of rights from umbrella EU external action approaches through to its specific

DRR mechanism. The thesis looks at applications of lexis in the content of EU DRR

strategies, in conjunction with rights-based child protection measures through EU partnerships

and DRR programming at a local level, to evaluate the effectiveness of EU policy

implementation. The analysis discussed in this thesis thus assists in addressing a gap in

literature on the EU and humanitarian assistance, and specific discussions of child protection

in EU external action. Literature has previously been generated in peripheral fields of

European development, humanitarian aid, and the protection of children and their rights in

disaster risk reduction policies. However, little of the EU literature refers to the Asia-

Pacific,40

and more particularly, Pacific states in the region,41

and with a lack of focus on

disasters, despite the susceptibility of the region to natural disasters, as this research has found

38

See Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale. ‘Human Rights and Disaster,’ in Routledge Handbook

on Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. Wisner et al. (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 67; Cheria

Anita, Sriprapha Petcharamesree & Edwin, A Human Rights Approach to Development, Books for Change,

(Bangalore, 2004). 39

UNISDR, Building resilience to disasters through partnerships: Lessons from the Hyogo Framework for

Action, (Geneva: UNISDR, 2013). 40

Thomas Christiansen, et al., The Palgrave Handbook of EU-Asia Relations, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

2013). 41

Stephen J. H. Dearden, “EU Aid Policy towards the Pacific ACPs,” Journal of International Development 20,

(2008): 205-217; Martin Holland and Malakai Koloamatangi, “Governance, Capacity and Legitimacy: EPAs,

EBA and the European Union’s Pacific Regionalism after Cotonou,” In Redefining the Pacific? Regionalism

Past, Present and Future, eds. Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer (Aldershot; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing

Limited, 2006), 101-120.

12

very little academic writing on the EU and EU Member States’ activities and collaborations in

DRR in the Asia-Pacific region.

1.2 THE RESEARCH PUZZLE

How are European Union (EU) partnerships effectively addressing child protection in

disaster risk reduction strategies in the Asia Pacific? This research measures EU policy

effectiveness to examine how EU policies translate into collaborative actions between the EU

and partners in disaster risk reduction programming in the Asia Pacific.42

These third party

actors include European international and non-governmental organisations, local donors and

local national government and non-government organisations. This core research question

looks at the partnerships between the EU and third parties to evaluate the implementation

measures of both groups in addressing child resilience when a disaster occurs. It investigates

trends of policy, funding and implementing partners from the EU in carrying out its

humanitarian objectives in disaster risk management. Partnerships with such actors will be

evaluated through the human security model, and human rights impact assessments to

evaluate lexis and praxis in DRR decision making. Using a qualitative approach, this research

question is analysed through data collection in the form of interviews, datasets and policy

analysis assist in addressing the primary research question. Assessments of the representation

of child rights in EU foreign policy mechanisms pinpoint elements of child protection in DRR

actions. This is an important consideration in view of the perceived influence of the EU as an

actor in global affairs.43

Evaluation of EU and Member States’ policies also reveals whether

there has been harmonisation of common DRR legislation, and consequently the recognition

of children and their rights in such policies. Harmonisation of domestic policies with the

overarching supranational policy of the EU is an element emerging from this discussion as

cohesion in policy formation can be viewed as important for coherent actions by the EU and

Member States in an international context. Appreciation of regional and local DRR actions of

42

See Appendix I for a map and list of countries included in this thesis as part of the Asia Pacific. 43

See Christopher Hill, “The Future of the European Union as a Global Actor’, in eds. Paolo Foradori, Paolo

Rosa, and Riccardo Scartezzini, Managing a Multilevel Foreign Policy: The EU in International

Affairs (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2007)

13

recipient countries of EU funding is equally important in acknowledging local values and

vulnerabilities when it comes to EU DRR policy formation and consequent action.

To evaluate the primary research question, the delineation of the research components creates

a deeper awareness of the elements of the research question. Consequently, insight of research

variables shapes data collection, and influences data analysis to assist in drawing conclusions

and answering the research question itself. Child protection measures and effective disaster

risk reduction strategies as features of EU external partnerships are discussed through the use

of supplementary research questions. These questions assist in examining the different, but

interlinked, components of this research. These inquiries evaluate the effectiveness of

partnerships between the EU and associated actors, through DRR strategies and levels of child

protection. As such, in addition to the core research question, the research considers the

following sub-research questions.

Does the EU’s DRR decision-making in external action policy and practice mainstream or

isolate children in DRR programming? In a review of the integration or separation of children

in EU-financed DRR activities, this question supports the correlating core research question

of measuring the effectiveness of DRR programming, and the perceptions of protectionism in

donorship. This research question also interlinks with other sub-questions through the

investigation of the timing of child-centric DRR programming, throughout the disaster cycle,

in positioning DRR programming as part of the disaster cycle and EU humanitarian assistance

mechanisms. Indeed, the mainstreaming or isolation of child-related activities through the

human rights impact assessments reflect the views of donors on the implementation of human

rights in specific external action mechanisms.

Is disaster risk reduction being effectively implemented as part of EU external action? This

question refers to the over-arching research objective of evaluating EU disaster risk

management, and more specifically DRR policy and programming as part of EU foreign

policy. To do so, the core institutional structure of the EU, in particular its executive arm, the

European Commission, must be explored. This encourages the discussion of the location of

disaster risk reduction as part of European humanitarian and development assistance, and the

14

implications on EU contributions in the field in third countries. Implementation barriers for

third parties in accessing financial support for DRR projects are a key aspect of this question.

EU policy analysis and interviews with key staff from EU institutions assist in analysing this

sub-question. In addition, elements of praxis through EU partnerships such as the financing of

DRR and the selection of partners to implement EU-funded DRR are pivotal aspects to

answering this question.

What measures do Member States take to respond to child protection in disaster risk

reduction policies as part of foreign policies? To analyse the EU’s position on addressing

child vulnerability in DRR programming, there must be an investigation of Member State

policies towards DRR and their considerations of protectionism for children in their foreign

policies. This leads to an analysis of legislative cohesion amongst Member States and

overarching EU policy and practice. In doing so, the human rights impact assessments of lexis

and praxis by Member States in their policies assists in answering this sub-question of

whether Member States apply human rights-based approaches to their foreign policies in

responding to child protection. It also assists with determining correlations between Member

States’ policies, where EU Framework partners are located within Europe, and the access of

partners to EU donorship in financing DRR programming. As part of the human rights impact

assessments, extensive policy analysis and data collection of funding profiles has been

undertaken to assess this aspect of the research.

How is the EU assisting child-centric DRR project implementation in the Asia Pacific? This

supporting question looks to the implementation mechanisms of the EU corresponding to the

project cycle of DRR programming. The objective is to analyse occurrences of natural

disasters, and the involvement of the EU to protect children surrounding a natural disaster. In

addition, implementation channels for partners are evaluated at a European level, and local

level to review the chain of partnerships between the EU and its partners. Funding profiles

and datasets of natural disasters and DRR project implementation in the Asia Pacific assist in

addressing this sub-question. Interview data with practitioners and organisations involved in

EU-financed DRR programming evaluates the prevalence of EU project implementation, and

15

positive and unconstructive aspects of said implementation channels to implement DRR

programming at a community level.

1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Having outlined the research parameters of this thesis, the following section establishes how

these questions will be investigated, and consequently analysed. Qualitative units of analysis

of DRR policy profiling, natural disaster data, donor funding profiles, donor-partner activities,

and appropriate semi-structured interviews coalesce in a unique and complex methodology, in

order to measure rights-based policy effectiveness and elucidate whether EU activities in

DRR strategies are indeed effective in reducing risks to child protection during the disaster

cycle.

This is a longitudal study as data has been accumulated to cover the period of 2002-2012.

This ten year period has been chosen as it covers key policy milestones in Europe and the

Asia Pacific in the fields of child rights and disaster risk reduction. Natural disasters, which

took place in the Asia Pacific during the period 2002-2012, are analysed to scrutinise EU and

Member State DRR policy formation and subsequent implementation. This timeframe has

been chosen to represent significant advances in European humanitarian and disaster risk

reduction policies during this time, rather than evaluating all historical developments of

European humanitarian aid. The research evaluates the data until the end of 2012 to coincide

with the introduction of the European External Action Service (EEAS) as ascertained under

the Lisbon Treaty, and the interaction between ECHO and the EEAS as the overarching

foreign policy mechanism. As expanded on below, cross-sectional data analysis of the data

sets and interviews over the research period assists in evaluating the relationship between the

different aspects of this research. In doing so, it assists in drawing initial conclusions on the

impact of the EU legislative and practical actions, particularly surrounding the Lisbon Treaty,

on child protection measures in EU DRR partnerships, in order to answer the primary research

question and sub-questions.

16

Methodological triangulation

Methodological triangulation is achieved by including a composite methodology of a

multitude of data sources with varied investigations. For this study, methodological

triangulation of content analysis of EU and Member State policy formation, data on EU-

financed DRR project implementation,44

and semi-structured interviews at a European and

Asia Pacific level. Triangulation assists in accomplishing the specific research objectives of

the thesis in measuring the effectiveness of EU donorship. Analysis of EU approaches to

human rights and child rights, European donorship and partnerships in humanitarian aid, and

the accumulated data of Asia Pacific natural and manmade disasters have all added to the

holistic understanding of the broad themes of this field. David and Sutton emphasise the need

to choose a methodology, which clearly explicates the context of the research.45

In support of

triangulated methodology, Webb states:

“Once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more independent

measurement processes, the uncertainty of its interpretation is greatly

44

Running in parallel to data collation specific to this thesis, several research projects have been undertaken

alongside primary supervisor and Senior Fellow at the National Centre for Research on Europe, Dr. Katharine

Vadura. The data collection for these projects have been done solely by the researcher, allowing for legitimate

use of the data where applicable in this thesis. In the first project, “Lesser Voices, Vital Need: European Union

Humanitarian Action in the Asia Pacific and the Protection of Children,” research, and data collection and

analysis were undertaken as part of research responsibilities during a Summer Scholarship 2009-2010. This was

jointly funded by the University of Canterbury and the Tertiary Education Commission of New Zealand (TEC).

This particular project collated European general and child-centric humanitarian assistance policy formation, in

conjunction with mapping European and Asia Pacific organisations active during disasters in the region. This

necessitated also mapping of all natural and manmade disasters in the Asia Pacific during 1999-2009. This

dataset was then updated by the researcher through the subsequent 2010-2011 project funded through the

European Union Centres Network (EUCN) New Zealand, “Partnerships across the Asia Pacific: assessing the

impact of EU external action in protecting and promoting children’s rights.” By updating this database, EU

involvement and disaster occurrence during 2010 could be collated and analysed. For the second EUCN-funded

project “Is anyone listening? European Union human rights in external action,” the researcher updated policy

analysis as part of secondary sources from European and Pacific foreign policy and development strategies

analysis. This involved collection and documentation of policy development in relation to EU human rights in

external relations, and additionally of children’s rights and a review of approaches relating to conditionality and

protection mechanisms across different sectors. Nevertheless, facets of this research, have necessitated further

data collection and analysis solely for this thesis. Specifically, content analysis of the EU and Member State

foreign policies specific to the human security model, and DRR programming, in addition to European

humanitarian and overseas development aid expenditure and DRR policy and programming analysis. 45

Matthew David, and Carole D Sutton, Social Research, (London; Los Angeles; New Delhi: Sage,2004), 27.

17

reduced. The most persuasive evidence comes through a triangulation of

measurement processes.”46

In particular, triangulation of data collection, textual study and interview questioning can

assist in clarifying any incompatibilities between data sources. The verbalisations in

interviews are confirmed by the actions revealed in the extraction of relative data.47

Similarly,

selected interview subjects support data analysis. With this underlying rationale, the research

employed the following three core qualitative data types to encapsulate the rights-based

research objectives of this study. Firstly, content analysis allowed for the policy profiling of

EU and Member State48

DRR and human rights policy formation. Secondly, observations of

qualitative data have been collated on different components of EU DRR. Lastly, interviews of

European Union bureaucrats, and partner organisations in the form of in-depth, semi-

structured interviews represented the last component of the methodological triangulation. As

expanded on below, these methodologies intertwine to form a robust dataset on the

phenomenon of child protection within the context of EU donorship and DRR in the Asia

Pacific region, within which it is formulated into impact assessments for the representation of

human rights in EU DRR programming. Components of these assessments are discussed and

as such, are rendered valuable to the field of study.

The creation of human rights impact assessments for this study is assisted by the model of

Turner and Morgan as a means of measuring human rights.49

This is a three-tiered approach

surrounding indicators of principles (international standards) combine with policy formation

(domestic and regional legislation and mechanisms) and practice (in this case event-based

measures of human rights.)50

Turner and Morgan do not refer to the humanitarian sector

specifically, but this approach is able to be applied to this research when looking at

46

Webb et al., Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences (Chicago: Rand McNally,

1966), 3. 47

Matthew David, and Carole D Sutton, Social Research, (London; Los Angeles; New Delhi: Sage, 2004), 27. 48

The timeframe for data collection for this research is within the period of 2002-2012. Therefore, policy

profiling does not include new Member State Croatia, but explores changes in policy by the former 27 Member

States. 49

B Turner and R Morgan, “Measuring Human Rights,” Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science

perspectives. (London; New York: Routledge, 2009). 50

B Turner and R Morgan, “Measuring Human Rights,” Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science perspectives

(London; New York: Routledge, 2009), 32 - 33.

18

international disaster risk and human rights principles,51

content analysis of policy formation,

and event-based disaster-centric praxis.

The human rights impact assessments of the actions of the EU and its Member States,

necessitated data collation from a variety of well-reputed online sources relating to key areas

of this thesis.52

Contemporary research dependence on assembled data sources, such as data

compilations from online portals facilitated the extraction of relevant data corresponding to

the core research objectives.53

At the time of data collection, there was no primary online

portal accruing all relevant data relating to disasters, which was needed for this research. Data

sources were thus combined in a holistic data set to draw attention to the central aspects of the

data, the relationships between the data, and draw valid conclusions beyond the raw data

itself. The collation of data surrounding praxis allows us to discuss human rights in practical

terms, and fill the void in the employ of the human security model, which has yet to be

applied through human rights impact assessments of applicable donor-partner data, in order to

gauge elements of human rights in DRR praxis. Qualitative data analysis tools of data

isolation, long-term involvement, and pattern correlation are applied to the disaster-related

dataset to test the theoretical framework and also to explain, predict and validate

phenomenological elements of this study.

The initial element of methodological triangulation for this thesis is represented by the

evaluation of lexis in policy formation, where an evaluation of the upholding of, or disregard

for, human rights is achieved by way of content analysis of policy formation, in conjunction

with subsequent implementation of those policies.

51

This specifically refers to states’ adherence to international conventions, specifically the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015, as the current guiding

international principles for child rights and disaster risk reduction respectively. 52

See Appendix II for a full outline of the individual components of the human rights impact assessments and

how they have been applied in each part of this thesis. 53

A K Chandanan and M K Shukla, “Data mining for qualitative dataset using association rules: a review,”

International journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering 2, no.2, (2013):

237.

19

POLICY PROFILING

Research data Analysis tool Measure of human rights /

human security

European Union Policies Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/POLICY

LEXIS

Member State policies Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/ POLICY /

LEXIS

Table 1.1: Policy Profiling as part of methodological triangulation for the human rights

impact assessments of EU DRR programming.

All foreign policies pertaining to child rights, human rights, and disaster risk management, of

the EU and Member States were catalogued54

and analysed to evaluate areas of cohesion and

disparity. Due to the often intersection of the function of DRR programming in humanitarian

and development policies, a holistic approach to EU and Member State foreign policies was

taken, in addition to human rights policies to review approaches to child rights, and child

protection. Initial policy analysis55

deduced whether EU and Member States’ policies focus on

the ‘needs’ of those at risk, where a needs-based approach is centred on the immediate risks faced

by individuals surrounding a disaster, namely food, shelter and water. Or, where policies consisted

of an overarching rights-based approach to DRR programming as part of their foreign policy.

A rights-based approach, centred on the rights of those at risk, recognises a comprehensive approach

to risk, including the physical and social needs and vulnerabilities of individuals and groups, in both

the short and long-term risks surrounding disasters. Content analysis additionally included the

components of human security aligning with international obligations of donors in

undertaking DRR programming at the various levels of governance. For example, explicit

indications of accountability, aspects of project implementation and reporting, and local

ownership. In doing so, this lexical analysis aligned with the core components of a rights-

based approach. In doing so, child rights, and specific praxis surrounding child protection are

observed as either mainstreamed or isolated in foreign policy formation. Rights-based policy

analysis was also undertaken thematically to review whether policies recognised children,

child rights, and child risks and child protection as a core aspect part of child rights. A rights-

based approach to content analysis included themes of social risks, to allow for social

54

See Appendix II for a full list of EU and Member State policies included in this research. 55

Search term, ‘needs’ or ‘rights’ for overarching policy basis. See Appendix II for all search terms.

20

vulnerability. Lexical content analysis of human rights and individual references to child

rights and child risks in policies are undertaken in specific alignment with the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), as expanded on in detail in Chapter IV.

In terms of praxis, content analysis of EU policies and Member State foreign policies also

examines practical channels of human security, such as governance and local ownership,56

in

addition to accountability and transparency in partner activities, through the financing of

project implementation. Praxis, according to the model of human security also surrounds the

activities undertaken through EU partnerships by the EU, its Member States, FPA

organisations, and in-country actors, during the phases of DRR project implementation.

Specifically, this study considers DRR praxis to include measures of child protection in EU-

financed humanitarian and DRR projects. This allows for a secondary level of analysis for the

human rights impact assessments of the EU DRR programming in the Asia Pacific.

DRR PRAXIS DATA COLLATION


human security

European financial

profiles

Data isolation

Long term involvement

Pattern Correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

EU- FPA partners

(general & child-centric)

Data isolation

Pattern Correlation PRACTICE / PRAXIS

Natural disaster data

Data isolation


Pattern correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

Asia Pacific DRR

projects

Data isolation


Table 1.2: DRR praxis data collation as part of methodological triangulation for the

human rights impact assessments of EU DRR programming

The 173 European international organisations, governmental and non-governmental

organisations administering humanitarian assistance through an FPA with the EU were

56

Mary Kaldor, Human Security: Reflections on Globalisation and Intervention. (Oxford: Wiley, 2013).

21

individually assessed by a review of their website profiles and EU financial support, as the

basis for the partnership analysis between the EU and its partners. Website explorations of

each partner established the organisations’ mandates, disaster type, type of project

implementation (immediate aid only, disaster preparedness, etc), and any public

acknowledgement of committed EU funding. These partners were then filtered by country to

review the level of involvement of particular Member States, or European country, in

facilitating EU humanitarian assistance and disaster risk reduction programming throughout

the world.

Partners were also classified as general or child-centric to establish what level of humanitarian

assistance implemented using EU funding was implemented for children or child protection.

Web-based analysis of the data on EU and Member State funding for disasters, whether

immediate response or disaster risk reduction programming was found through the Financial

Tracking Service (FTS) database, which is hosted by the UN Office for Coordination for

Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).57

This database enables data to be extracted on financing of

all reported aid undertaken through international organisations such as the Red Cross, and all

government or non-government organisations. This also includes bilateral assistance from

donor to partner countries, or private assistance.

Data mapping was completed of all natural and manmade disasters that took place in the Asia

Pacific region from 1999 to 2012. For analytical purposes, there was a specific objective of

acquiring figures on populations within countries affected for each disaster. The other

research aim was to record cross-border disasters, where disasters affected several countries.

Populations affected were collated from the GLIDE database.58

To analyse disaster data, this

57

United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “Financial tracking service:

Tracking Global Humanitarian Aid Flows”, http://fts.unocha.org. Accessed: 15 November 2012. 58

The online source publishes data relevant to individual disaster scenarios. The GLIDE database is endorsed by

the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) of the University of Louvain in Brussels

(Belgium), OCHA/ReliefWeb, OCHA/FSCC, ISDR, UNDP, WMO, IFRC, OFDA-USAID, FAO, La Red and

the World Bank, which makes it the most trustworthy source available for crude disaster information. It is an

accumulation of scientific data records, data from regional disaster response centres, reports from international

humanitarian assistance organisations, and media sources. The data produced can be filtered depending on the

type of disaster (such as cyclone, drought, earthquake, epidemic, famine, fire, heat-wave, landslide, or tsunami),

the continent or the country affected, and the date of the disaster. The GLIDE database is administered by the

http://fts.unocha.org/

22

research focuses on populations affected by a singular disaster occurrence. This judgement

was made as the term ‘affected’ is inclusive of all citizens who have deceased, been injured,

or had their lives disrupted by a disaster, such as displaced or evacuated citizens.59

One

shortcoming of the GLIDE system is the lack of filter for the different cohorts, such as

populations deceased, populations affected, households affected, or populations dead and

injured. Thus, the figures produced for a single disaster may be the only known data from all

sources, which for instance, may not be those affected, but instead the amount of households

evacuated. Data collated from the GLIDE database was supported by the international disaster

database, EM-DAT, established by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

(CRED) of the University of Louvain in Brussels, Belgium.60

To support data sources

described above, this research also refers to the ‘CRED Crunch’ reports, provided by the

CRED research centre,61

which indexes the largest global disasters every six months. The

reports summarise, at a regional and country level, trends in disaster occurrence, and provide

total figures on populations killed and affected. Subject to the data available, economic losses

may be provided by way of total damage in US dollar value, or by the percentage of the

national Gross Domestic Product. This was particularly useful in the case of small island

states, where populations are not as large as some in the Asia Pacific, but the percentage of

damage as an economic loss can be largely indicative of the effect it has on a Pacific state

economy. The EM-DAT database is also able to filter to this level of analysis if necessary, yet

like the GLIDE database, populations affected by a disaster are commonly not filtered further

to demographics or vulnerable groups, which would be extremely applicable to the child

protection element of this research. This is a consequence of unattainable data surrounding a

particular disaster and poses a problem for data analysis and research findings. Both GLIDE

and EM-DAT do not extend past the core disaster data areas of country, date and those

Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC). See Asian Disaster Reduction Centre (ADRC), “Global Identifier

Number”, http://www.glidenumber.net/glide/public/about.jsp, Accessed: 26 April 2010. 59

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) uses the following definition for

populations affected by a disaster for their international disaster database, EM-DAT: “those requiring immediate

assistance during a period of emergency; it can also include displaced or evacuated persons.” CRED, ‘Criteria

and Definition,’2009, http://www.emdat.be/criteria-and-definition, Accessed: 9 September 2013. This widely

embraced definition for populations affected is employed for this research as children can be also be at risk

when displaced or evacuated, at different points of the disaster cycle. 60

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), ‘EM-DAT: The International Disaster

Database,’ http://emdat.be/database, Accessed 4 April 2013. 61

Ibid.

http://www.glidenumber.net/glide/public/about.jsp

http://www.emdat.be/criteria-and-definition

http://emdat.be/database

23

affected, thus does not include broad organisation participation, donor financial profiling and

any subsequent activity following the immediate response, such as DRR programming.

Despite these factors, GLIDE remains the primary source for such information on disaster

occurrences, and links to international organisation and media accounts of the immediate

response to a disaster. Analysis and research findings can be achieved by coupling available

data with subsequent data from other areas. As the majority of disaster data available

surrounds immediate humanitarian assistance, it was also necessary to uncover where the EU

was facilitating DRR in the Asia Pacific, and via which partners. The UN International

Strategy for Disaster Reduction has created a Disaster Risk Reduction Project portal for Asia

and the Pacific,62

to access on projects in the region, whether completed, current or upcoming.

It can be filtered by donor, which is vital to develop trends in financing DRR projects,

geographic trends and which funding mechanism the EU is using to facilitate DRR

programming.

In-depth interviews represent the third aspect of methodological triangulation for this study, to

support the human rights impact assessments and policy content analysis as measures of the

effectiveness of EU DRR programming. 27 interviews have been undertaken with key

informants to investigate EU partnerships,63

resulting in enhanced understanding of DRR

policy formation and decision-making within EU institutions, and from those engaged in the

implementation of DRR programming in the Asia Pacific. This is an adequate amount of

cases, as the interviews acted as support for the other two forms of data collection in

triangulation, thus supported the human-rights impact assessments and policy analysis. The

points of view of the participants presented the researcher with sufficient access

to information across the different cohorts of participants for data comparability, along with

content to build on the theoretical basis of this study.

62

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Disaster Risk Reduction Project Portal for Asia

and the Pacific, http://www.drrprojects.net/drrp/drrpp/home , Accessed 4 April 2013. 63

See Appendix III for a full list of interview data included in this research.

http://www.drrprojects.net/drrp/drrpp/home

24

INDIVIDUAL LEVELS OF THE INTERVIEW DATA


human security

European Union

bureaucrats

Data isolation

Pattern Correlation

PRINCIPLE/ POLICY /

LEXIS

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

European DRR

practitioners

European FPA partners

Donors / UN agencies /

In-country practitioners /

Table 1.3: DRR interview data collation as part of methodological triangulation for the

human rights impact assessments of EU DRR programming

One prominent threat to research validity when including interviews as a unit of analysis is

the possibility for subjects to alter their responses from the truth. Berry reminds researchers

interview participants are not obligated to disclose their genuine opinions of a matter.64

Moreover, Berry warns to be conscious of interviewee tone and mannerisms as subjects may

appear knowledgeable on a subject but this should not influence a researcher’s judgement to

consider that particular report as more true to reality than other participants’ accounts.65

As

such, while the primary role of the interviews in this study as a data source was to validate

data analysis from the former two data sources, the interviews were also reliant on the other

data sources to confirm (or refute) the claims of interview participants.

Given these qualitative grounds for interview data analysis, participants were hand-picked as

opposed to random selection. The rationale behind this decision surrounds limited access to

high-level EU bureaucrats, and DRR practitioners located in-country.66

In addition the

respondents needed to be suitable for the information required, depending on which facet of

the thesis they were responding to as the interviewees represented the different areas of this

research and facets of European processes and Asia Pacific disaster risk reduction.67

Actors

64

Jeffrey M Berry, “Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing,” Political Science and Politics 35, no.

4 (2002): 680. 65

Ibid, 680. 66

Specifically, in Vanuatu, where in-country interview data was gathered. 67

A directory to interview data collation for this research can be found in Appendix III

25

involved in DRR policy formation and practice are represented, as are experts in the field to

gain their perspective of the area of research. At a grassroots level, the effect of DRR policy

and dialogue between local actors and community members, particularly drawing on the

Pacific nation of Vanuatu as a country extremely susceptible to disasters, and as a country,

which the EU is engaged in financing DRR programming. Participation in these interviews

was done so voluntarily, and informed consent was given prior to the interview. Subjects were

not placed in any situation where they were put at risk of any kind. The interview contents

remained confidential and subjects were asked to confirm whether they wished to remain

anonymous or consented to the disclosure of their identity in any published documents.

Following the interview written transcripts were sent for participants to check direct

quotations. Interviewees were then given the opportunity to withdraw from the research if

they so wished up until a date specified.68 Children were not included as participants in this

research. This is because the focus of the research surrounds the bureaucratic processes and

partnerships between the EU and its partners, and how these actors in implementing EU-

financed DRR projects supported children and child rights. However, it is acknowledged that

the effects of these processes can have a significant impact on children and their rights. In this

sense, interview questions to child advocacy organisations, or those involved with

implementing child-centric DRR projects at a grassroots level, surrounded child vulnerability,

the impacts of policy formation on children and their rights, and the protection of children at a

time of crisis.

Interviews have been undertaken using a semi-structured format. Semi-structured interviews

are systematic but are flexible enough to divert from guideline questions. The interviews

cover established topics and follow a general script, which, if requested, is provided to the

interviewee. The structure of questions is, however, open-ended to allow the conversation to

develop in different directions. Interview questions varied between the subgroups of key

informants, yet within those groups subjects were asked the same questions. This allowed for

variance between interview participants, but comparability between responses from within a

group. Prior to the interview, participants were given an introduction to the general outline of

68

Consent forms contained a date for the withdrawal for the project. Additional contact was made with

participants for any contributions to be amended or withdrawn prior to submission.

26

the topics and questions to be covered in the future interview. This decision to provide

respondents with preliminary access to interview questions can have a negative impact

on data received, and consequent research findings, as participant responses are

predetermined as they have been given time to consider and formulate answers. Nevertheless,

Bernard suggests this is most useful when interviewers will not get more than one chance to

interview a subject.69

He mentions also it is a successful method when interacting with high-

level bureaucrats and elite members of a community as they are accustomed to efficient use of

their time. This strategy by the researcher also demonstrates control of what needs to be

covered, while remaining flexible enough to let a conversation develop in different

directions.

Validity concerns

By combining a variety of data sources, results are substantiated and validity is increased.

Nevertheless, there are several aspects of this research which could impact its outcomes. The

chief concern of validity surrounds the variance in disaster-related data, which can have a

negative impact on end findings. The reasons for this surround potentially inaccurate numbers

of people affected, where estimates are likely to be higher due to unknown location of people

during a time of crisis. Secondly, online donor and humanitarian organisation financial or

project data can often be limited due to a lack of data input into the online databases. The data

sources used are considered the most accurate and credible databases as an initial point of

information. In addition, internal transparency issues between the EU and its partners

surrounding the responsibilities of partners to make visible EU-financed project proposals and

outcomes online or via international databases indicates a potential lack of information

dissemination. This will be expanded on in Chapter IV of this thesis which assesses issues of

accountability surrounding project implementation. As such, the data collated from the

websites of partner organisations may not reflect their full involvement in either child-

focussed projects, or DRR projects, dependant on the case in point.

69

H. R. Bernard, Research Methods in Cultural anthropology (3rd

edition) (Oxford: Sage Publications, 2002,)

203.

27

The focus of this thesis is to evaluate European partnerships to emphasise rights-based

approaches to child protection and reducing the risks related to children throughout the

disaster cycle. With this in mind, environmental, technical, infrastructural, or economic

effects of a natural disaster on Asia Pacific states will not be discussed unless they are related

to the risks faced by children, or influential to respecting their rights. The research recognises

the similarities of risks faced by children in the context of natural disasters. Indeed, in Chapter

III, the study investigates the use of lexis by the EU and Member States in child rights and

reducing child vulnerability in its external action, which can apply to both natural and

manmade disasters and consequently pose risk to the legitimacy of policies and institutional

structures involved in disaster management, and child protection.

The thesis remains focussed on European strategies and partnerships surrounding natural

disasters as the primary focus of the EU’s DRR strategy and as part of the mandate for

DIPECHO. Because of the limited amount of literature examining DIPECHO’s role in

disaster risk management, specifically DRR programming, it was important the mandate,

institutional functions and partnerships of DIPECHO were the focus of this research. In this

sense, data extractions and the selective interviews undertaken for this study focus primarily

on coordination with DIPECHO, with reference to other European Commission mechanisms,

such as the European External Action Service and the Directorate General for Development

Cooperation where appropriate.

This research recognises the influence of other donors in the Asia Pacific region besides the

EU and its Member States in implementing its disaster risk reduction strategy. Due to

restrictions of scope, this research is unable to compare the roles and processes of alternative

donors in the region in depth, but to a lesser extent, will look at comparable praxis and

measures of human security in the region.

While representing an interesting form of analysis, this study does not include exhaustive

content analysis of Asia Pacific domestic disaster-related policies. The scope of the research

has meant that only general policy mapping of general development policies, disaster risk

management strategies and foreign policies of Asia Pacific states has been undertaken to

28

illustrate cases-in-point or trends of child rights in policy formation. Asia Pacific states were

consequently included in this study were analysed for a general understanding of DRR

processes vis-à-vis the focal research themes of human rights and child protection, but not

included as part of the lexical analysis.

This section has given an overview of the methodological framework for this thesis. A chain

of evidence is achieved where data collection and cross-sectional data analysis of the datasets

and interviews over the research period assists to evaluate the relationship between the

different variables of this research and draw conclusions to answer the primary research

question and sub-questions. The results-orientated data analysis pulls together the data in the

form of the human rights impact assessments, when applied to the EU and Member States.

The components of the research triangulation feature in the table below to outline how each

aspect of the dataset align with Turner and Morgan’s human rights methodology and

correspond with the human security foundations of lexis-praxis to create the basis for the

DRR human rights impact assessments. The figure below depicts how the data sources and

human rights- based approach intertwine with the research variables of the primary research

question.

How are European Union (EU) partnerships effectively addressing child protection in disaster risk reduction

strategies in the Asia Pacific?

Figure 1.1 Intertwining a rights-based approach & use of data

to address focal research questions.

Child protection Effective disaster risk reduction strategies

EU partnerships

Policy profiling Financial profiling EU Framework Partners Natural disaster data

Financial profiling

Policy profiling Asia Pacific DRR projects


KEY

Policy profiling

Interviews

POLICY

PRACTICE

PRINCIPLE

Policy profiling

Policy profiling

Policy profiling

EU Framework Partners (child-centric) Financial profiling(child-centric)

Intl Orgs & NGOs AP National mgmt offices ECOM

ECHO ECHO regional offices ECOM Partner agencies AP donors

Datasets

HR MEASURE

Research Question

Child-centric intl orgs Policy makers

29

The theoretical basis of human security is consequently rationalised by including both policy

profiling and event-based data for the lexis-praxis methodology, to ensure the ensuing human

rights impact assessments are process-orientated. In summary, a rights-based methodology

through the lens of human security has been applied to the research variables. The human

rights impact assessments assist in demonstrating how a rights-based approach to DRR as part

of humanitarianism and development can be effectively put into practice, translated from

simply lexis and a foreign policy objective. Subsequent sections investigate thematic areas

including EU institutional and trends of lexis in global disaster risk management, establishing

a foundation to evaluate EU child-centric DRR praxis in the Asia Pacific in subsequent

chapters. Statistical representations of the core data accentuate trends, cycles and distributions

in the data to formulate conclusions in the analytical chapters of this thesis.

1.5 THE THESIS OUTLINE

Throughout this thesis, the research investigates the preventative reactions of the EU and its

Member States in addressing child protection and the social risks faced by children during the

disaster cycle.

The second chapter depicts the boundaries of this research. The definitions exercised in this

study place the thesis within the field of study. EU and Member State internal and external

legislative, fiscal, and partner-based processes provide the foundations for the conceptual and

analytical chapters. Through a narrative on existing literature in the field, the basis for

collaborations between the EU and its partners portrays linkages through lexis employed in

DRR policy formation, followed by an investigation into EU and Member State DRR praxis

in the Asia Pacific.

The third chapter of this thesis provides a conceptual overview of the core aspects of the

human security model, and the elements to be evaluated in this thesis, as part of the lexis-

praxis methodology. Firstly, it explores lexis surrounding a rights-based approach, and the

specific elements of child rights in a disaster setting. Notions of vulnerability and risk are also

conceptually analysed from a social perspective. Foreign policy praxis toward DRR

30

programming frame the practical elements of the human security model, with a final section

on local ownership and various bottom-up processes to DRR programming in the Asia

Pacific.

Chapter III provides insights into illustrations of rights-based and risk-based lexis in EU and

Member State foreign policy formation, with a particular focus on the child rights, and child

vulnerability. The objective of this chapter is to highlight areas where there is policy

coherence amongst the European Community, and where there are areas of divergence.

Lexical analysis from Chapter IV of internal EU policy formation then shifts the rights-based

impact assessment to review internal decision-making for DRR praxis, and the internal

implementation praxis where it evaluates trends in the Framework Partners from European

countries which deliver its DRR strategy. It is supported by interview data surrounding

positive and pessimistic views of partner organisations at various points of the project cycle of

EU funded DRR programming.

In Chapter V, a critical exploration of the EU’s DRR praxis in the Asia Pacific draws on

interview data to review the EU as a promoter of DRR in the Asia Pacific at a local level. The

focus of this chapter is to look at multi-stakeholder involvement in community-based DRR

action, the acknowledgement of traditional practices in Asia Pacific DRR, in order to achieve

an integrated approach to child resiliency.

The final chapter concludes with a reconsideration of the research findings of this thesis. It

reconsiders the human security model as the foundations of this research in the utilisation of a

rights-based approach to DRR lexis and praxis, in measuring the effectiveness of donorship.

In doing so, this chapter summarises the findings from this research in reference to global,

European and Asia Pacific approaches to child protectionism and agency. The conclusions

include a review of the data and potential future directions for DRR policy initiatives and

subsequent action.

31

CHAPTER II

THE STUDY IN CONTEXT

______________________________________

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter firstly discusses global DRR lexis and praxis in DRR followed by an insight in

the EU’s external action mechanism specifically. This research draws on the facets of human

security as tools to implement DRR programming, as part of the EU’s foreign policy

objectives foreign policy. International and EU foreign policy perspectives of human security

ensures the doctrines of human rights and social vulnerability can be applied to aspects of

foreign policy in protecting child rights in DRR strategies. These tools represent international

channels of praxis, as well as local level governance and community-based approaches to

DRR implementation. To close, this chapter discusses internal institutional characteristics of

the EU as grounds for evaluating praxis in external action instigated by the institutions. In

addition, this chapter places this research in the respective fields of study.

Selected study of disaster risk management lexis and praxis

UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) sees ‘disasters’ as:

“A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a

society involving widespread human, material, economic or

environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability

of the affected community or society to cope using its own

resources.” 70

70

UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk, “Terminology”, 2009,

http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf, Accessed: 9 September 2013.

http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

32

Disaster management is the holistic term employed when discussing the stages of disaster

preparedness, response, recovery, and reconstruction. It is not focussed on reducing the risks

but on the implementation of necessary measures during a time of crisis.71

Disaster risk

management then couples the phases of the disaster cycle with measures of prevention,

mitigation and risk reduction.

Figure 2.1 DRR and the disaster cycle

The term DRR as defined by the UNISDR, refers to the concept and practice of:

“Reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to

analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including

through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability

of people and property, wise management of land and the

71

John Twigg, Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency

programming, (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004), 13.

EVENT

RESPONSE

RECOVERY

RECONSTRUCTION

MITIGATION

PREVENTION

PREPAREDNESS

DRR

DRR

33

environment, and improved preparedness for adverse

events.”72

This definition of DRR remains broad to be contextually applicable to natural and manmade

disasters which communities are exposed, whether in terms of economic, infrastructural,

environmental or social risks. Reducing risks surrounding a disaster also requires a review of

governance structures, where executive and legislative decisions, strategies and actions of

humanitarian actors and communities must be strengthened to acknowledge potential levels of

vulnerability amongst individuals and groups. Risks which individuals and groups can face

surrounding a disaster can materialise prior to, during, or following a disaster occurs,73

thus

necessitate both the prospective and corrective management of risks. The segregation of

implementation mechanisms for risk reduction is echoed in current approaches to DRR

programming, with the progressive classification of DRR as corrective and prospective risk

reduction.74

Even then, in many cases, focus is given to the application of DRR alongside the

recovery and reconstruction phases, known as corrective risk reduction, in order to ‘build

back better.’75

This latter scheme does not equate with the reduction of causal risk. Instead it

suggests a retrospective approach to risk management, rather than looking to prospective risk

management, which could be considered as more effective in reducing impending risk,

instead of managing risk following the event. Moreover, as Daly and Rahmayati suggest, the

term can represent negative connotations towards existing social structures at a local level,76

implying that existing structures were inadequate prior to the disaster.

72

UN International Strategy for Disaster Risk, “Terminology”, 2009,

http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf, Accessed: 9 September 2013. 73

John Twigg, Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency

programming, (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004), 13. 74

Allan Lavell, Relationships between Local and Community Disaster Risk Management & Poverty Reduction:

A Preliminary Exploration, (Geneva: UNISDR, 2008). 75

Kennedy et al., “Disaster mitigation lessons from build back better following the 26 December 2004

Tsunamis” Water and Urban Development Paradigms eds. Feyen, Shannon and Neville, (London: Taylor and

Francis Group, 2009); Delegation of the EU to Thailand and UNISDR, Building back better for next time,

(Bangkok: UNISDR, 2010); 76

Patrick Daly and Yenny Rahmayati, “Cultural Heritage and Community Recovery in Post-tsunami Aceh,” in

From the Ground Up: Perspectives on Post-tsunami and post-conflict Aceh, eds. P Daly, R M Feener, A Reid,

(Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2012), 57-78.

http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

34

Nevertheless, those facilitating DRR tend to consider corrective risk reduction as more cost-

effective in the short term following a disaster. By doing so, the focus remains on the hazard

in question, rather than reducing the risks associated with hazards which affect communities

in the future. DRR is often not at the apex of political agendas, particularly during periods of

calm, when risk management is often subordinate to other budgetary priorities, both in

domestic and foreign policy, as supported by Kellet and Sparks, in Chapter I.77

Additionally,

one European DRR practitioner interviewed for this research believed there is a concentration

of states applying DRR as corrective risk management, during the recovery phase.

“There’s that assumption that is where it’ll happen, and

because they’ve assumed that’s where it’ll happened, they’ve

stopped thinking about who’s making it happen, and what are

the results.”78

Another DRR practitioner believed the fulfilment of prospective risk was down to advocacy,

rather than political will.

“Maybe there are just not enough advocates for this, and it’s

horrible to say it, but even being evangelical to keep pushing

the issues.”79

The delineation between prospective and corrective DRR only corresponds with the

preparedness and response phases of the disaster cycle, instead of implementing DRR to

bridge the phases of a disaster cycle. Such is a holistic approach to disaster risk, and the risk

reduction strategies. For institutions which fund DRR programming like the EU, this affects

how they perceive risk, and situate DRR in the form of humanitarian and development

assistance. A DRR practitioner for an international organisation explained:

77

Jan Kellett, and Dan Sparks. Disaster Risk Reduction: Spending Where It Should Count, edited by Global

Humanitarian Assistance, (Wells: Development Initiatives, 2012), 14. 78

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 12/09/2012. 79

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 15/09/2012

35

“...It’s a massive cultural change, within the humanitarian

sector...There’s responding to an impact of an emergency,

there’s responding to poverty, you can see an impact of

disaster, you can see the impact of poverty. You can do

something about responding to risk, but it means having to

understand what could happen and putting things in place for

that.”80

The facilitation of DRR in both humanitarian and development assistance also denotes the

perception of risk must be comprehensive of all types of risks. A national disaster

management official (NDMO) describes the implementation of DRR when not overwhelmed

by disaster response:

“We also have a peacetime role, preparedness, after

responding you have recovery, our peacetime role is risk

reduction programmes and activities, and that is when we

bring in the partners to come in and assist in that role, having

different programmes and activities.”

The lexis used in the above statement by an NDMO representative surrounding DRR refers to

the activities taken place between natural disasters as the ‘peacetime’ role of the government

and collaborating partners. Traditionally a term employed in a manmade disaster context,

where conflict prevention measures are taken place during periods of peace, while DRR

policy and programming often are in the reference to a natural disaster setting. The NDMO

reference to peacetime DRR activities is an anomaly but one which can be useful in

increasing the effectiveness in risk reduction policy and practice.81

As in the case of the EU,

where DRR remains focusses on natural disasters despite the frequent overlap of risks faced

by vulnerable groups in a natural and manmade context. As such, recognition in lexis used by

actors involved in DRR processes, such as ‘peacetime,’ only reiterates the overlap of risks in

80

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/9/2012. 81

Pacific governmental and community capacity and actions aligning with a rights-based approach to DRR are

expanded on further in Chapter VI.

36

both natural and manmade contexts, and of the importance of recognising existing risks, or

mitigating against potential impending risks towards natural disasters, during periods of calm,

not solely conflict scenarios. Increases of this overlap can assist in more effective policy

formation and DRR programming risk reduction at a local level in both natural and manmade

contexts. Gilbert refers directly to peacetime disaster-related activities but in relation to

conflict situations,82

whereas Olson and Drury have highlighted in their statistical research,

the interrelationship between natural disasters and conflict scenarios, and the political and

developmental impacts,83

without looking at DRR specifically. Kelman looked to levels of

diplomacy between states at an international level surrounding disaster responses, in

reference to the need for countries to accept assistance in all its forms,84

while Dunne and

Wheeler refer to the obligations of states of responsibility to protect in the context of

manmade disasters, when facing the ‘operationalisation’ of protective interventions.85

It is in

the context of both natural and manmade disasters that donors and states have a role to uphold

the rights of those at risks. Specific to a natural disaster cycle, the rights of individuals are

applicable to the entire disaster cycle, not just in the response and recover phases. The

upholding of rights in a holistic approach to disaster management is therefore assisted by

DRR, and a holistic approach to risk and associated vulnerability.

The UNISDR has defined vulnerability as:

“The characteristics and circumstances of a community,

system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging

effects of a hazard.”86

82

Claude Gilbert, “Studying Disaster: Changes in the main conceptual tools,” in What is a Disaster? A dozen

perspectives on the question , ed. E L Quarantelli, (London: Routledge, 1998), 11-18. 83

A. Cooper Drury, and Richard S Olson, “Disasters and Political Unrest: An empirical investigation,” Journal

of Contingencies and Crisis Management 6, no. 3 (1998), 153-161. 84

I. Kelman, Disaster Diplomacy: How disasters affect peace and conflict, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2012). 85

Nicholas J. Wheeler and Tim Dunne, “Operationalising Protective Intervention: Alternative models of

authorisation,” The Routledge handbook of the responsibility to protect, eds. W. Andy Knight and Frazer

Egerton, (New York: Routledge, 2012), 87-102. 86

UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, ‘UNISDR Terminology for Disaster Risk Reduction

(2009),’ 01 January 2009, http://preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/v.php?id=508 , Accessed:

20 May 2011.

http://preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/v.php?id=508

37

While this is considered a just definition in relation to natural disasters, there are many

different aspects to such vulnerability. Vulnerability can encompass many different features,

which arise from a crisis, such as physical, economic, environmental or social aspects of a

community. Vulnerability can also vary between communities as some populations may be

more vulnerable to some consequences of a disaster than others.

This definition frames vulnerability as based on the characteristics of a group or person,

which cause individuals to be susceptible to a disaster. This concept goes on the premise that

individuals or groups will inherently be at risk, rather than challenging a community’s ability

to withstand or recover from a disaster. The latter is embedded in the definition offered by

Blaikie et al., which embodies a social interpretation of vulnerability around natural disasters:

“A set of characteristics of a group or individual in terms

of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and

recover from the impact of a natural hazard. It involves a

combination of factors that determine the degree to which

someone's life and livelihood is at risk by a discrete and

identifiable event in nature or society.” 87

This definition includes the potential resilience of a community or individual to endure the

effects of a natural disaster, rather than focussing on the weaknesses that render a community

susceptible during a time of crisis. This study accepts Blaikie’s definition of vulnerability.

This study will include in its view of social vulnerability local institutional, social, cultural, or

ethnic factors, as the ‘combination of factors,’ which can determine the level of risks of an

individual or group. Within the thesis there is specific methodological and literary references

to children, whose vulnerability, as illuminated further in this research, can increase but

ultimately a child’s vulnerability is contextual across the above factors within their individual

situation.

Children represent a particularly vulnerable faction of society, whose rights can often be

marginalised at a time of disaster. Children can be extremely vulnerable to both fast and slow 87

Blaikie et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s vulnerability and disasters, (London: Routledge, 1994), 9.

38

onset risks. These may be physical or psychological in nature, and can range from immediate

risks such as the possibility of family separation, through to long-term risks such as health

concerns and negative impacts to their education and development. In addition, children can

face a lack of access to services or protection at different stages of the disaster cycle, where

there specific needs88

and rights can be disregarded. The different types of risks to children

surrounding a disaster will be discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Currently the EU’s 2008 policy package focussing on children and child rights within EU

external action,89

takes a holistic approach in highlighting the risks and child vulnerability

thus includes risks attached to both natural and manmade disasters. However, these

overarching values and guidelines often do not translate to the specific policies in DRR,

where references to child risk remain minimal and if alluded to, only immediate risks tend to

be implied.

Underlying lexis and praxis in the EU institutionalisation of DRR

The EU’s 2009 ‘Strategy for supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries,’

states the Community adheres to the UNISDR’s definition, but the definition of DRR

embraced is a slight deviation from the above:

"Actions taken to reduce the risk of disasters and the adverse

impacts of natural hazards, through systematic efforts to

analyse and manage the causes of disasters, including through

avoidance of hazards, reduced social and economic

88

Lori Peek. "Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacity, and Promoting

Resilience - an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008): 1-29. 89

European Commission, A Special Place for Children in EU External Action [SEC(2008)135] Brussels:

European Commission, 2008; European Commission, The European Union’s Action Plan on Children’s Rights

in External Action [COM(2008) 55 final],Brussels: European Commission, 2008; European Commission,

Children in Emergency and Crisis Situations [COM(2008) 55 final], Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

39

vulnerability to hazards, and improved preparedness for

adverse events".90

The EU’s definition emphasises natural hazards, as opposed to disasters in general. Policies

and subsequent action implemented by the EU, its Member States often focus on the technical

impacts of disasters, such as environmental, infrastructural, or economic risks, and tend to

neglect social impacts on vulnerable groups, including children. This is impacted by the

terminology used by the EU and its Member States to discuss emergencies, and gives context

to the perceptions of risk. This study evaluated the broad lexical terms of ‘crisis’ and

‘disaster,’ to review European approaches to situations which it is involved in overseas.

The external policies analysed demonstrated the expected precedence of ‘crises’ over

‘disasters,’ in policy formation. A large proportion of ‘crisis’ lexis from the Directorate

General (DG) for development and cooperation (DEVCO) and the EEAS allude primarily to

conflict scenarios, with the only case of the term ‘crisis’ employed for a natural disaster, in

the 2004 Disaster Preparedness and Prevention (DPP) policy. While EEAS policies had very

few mentions of disasters, ‘crises’ are portrayed often in general terms, or in a few instances

in reference to economic crisis, often in later documents to coincide with the European

financial crisis from 2009 onwards. The primary use of ‘crisis’ by DEVCO is unexpected,

considering its role in community assistance in the reconstruction phases of disaster

management, along with projects towards climate change adaptation through both Europeaid

and the EU-ACP partnership, which would imply a higher representation of ‘disaster’ lexis.

The lexical dominance of the use of ‘disaster’ in ECHO policies towards emergencies is

somewhat consistent with its function as the EU institution responsible for action surrounding

natural disasters. Lexical analysis of policy formation denoted a strong attempt by the EU to

delineate between its responses to conflict situations, and to a lesser degree, other forms of

manmade or technical disasters, through the use of ‘crisis’ rather than disaster in

Development and EEAS policy formation. Yet there are nuances in ECHO’s responsibilities

towards disasters, where often policies overlap or segregate situations classed as ‘crises’ or

90

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:

EU Strategy for supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries (COM(2009)84), Brussels:

European Commission, 2009, 2.

40

‘disasters’ as is evident in ECHO’s overarching mandate, the Consensus of Humanitarian

Aid, and the partner documents of 2009 and 2010. Article 2 of the Consensus for

Humanitarian Aid indicates ‘humanitarian crises’ as both manmade and natural disasters,91

while Article 15 informs humanitarian aid is not employed as a crisis management tool,

portraying a rather ambiguous depiction of ECHO’s role as part of the EU’s institutional

structures surrounding assistance towards natural and manmade disasters, or crises. ECHO’s

responsibility to natural and manmade disasters is ambiguous because it is involved in crisis

management through aid provisions, therefore informing some level of responsibility in

response to both forms of crisis. In ECHO’s supporting documents for partner agencies, the

majority of ‘crisis’ and ‘disaster’ lexis is in a neutral context, and can consequently apply to

both natural or manmade emergencies.

The 2010 Joint Directive on Civil Protection situated under ECHO, but implemented in

conjunction with EEAS processes, exemplifies how the terminology employed in policy

documents can result in a confusion of situations the EU responds to. Indications of ‘crises’

are broad and do not solely surrounding warfare. Indeed, even the use of ‘crisis’ in reference

to the role of the military does not necessarily imply crisis management towards conflict

scenarios, as the military can have an important role in natural disaster responses. And yet

‘disasters’ are strictly depicted as either natural or manmade, but does not include conflict

situations. This unclear delineation is summarised in the following statement in reference to

the EEAS:

“The creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS)

offers opportunities to improve consistency between disaster

response and possible political and security related elements of

the EU’s overall crisis response.”92

According to this statement, the EU’s crisis responses include natural and manmade disasters.

91

European Commission, European Consensus for Humanitarian Aid, (Brussels: European Commission, 2007),

Article 2 & 15. 92

Appendix II, EEAS, 2010(a), pg 3.

41

Beyond the tangible repercussions of inconsistent terminology, as per the example above,

ambiguous lexis can have a potentially damaging effect on EU partners’ view of the EU, and

what the EU considers as pivotal to its external action policies. Lexical choices can lead to

misrepresentations of foreign policy principles and subsequent practice. This is particularly

influential on the EU’s position towards reducing the risks of disasters, if there is a lack of

coherence surrounding what constitutes a disaster.

The inconsistencies also lie in the filtration from overarching policies to specific policy

mechanisms, such as from the Consensus for Humanitarian Aid,93

which refers to both natural

and manmade disasters, to the 2009 DRR policy,94

which is natural disaster-centric.

Furthermore, the inconsistencies extend to regional policies, where context for humanitarian

assistance in the EU-Africa Caribbean Pacific (ACP) Partnership Cotonou Agreement states,

“situations of crisis may also result from natural disasters, man-made crises such as wars and

other conflicts...”95

Indeed, the disparities in lexical choices affect the responses of the

European Community and its partners. The analysis from this research deduced that despite

efforts from the EU to outline the responsibilities of its external action mechanisms, through

the use of ‘crisis’ to denote conflict management, and the term ‘disaster’ to imply responses

to natural and technical hazards, this is not reflected in the use of lexis in other policy

documents. In fact, the effect is quite the opposite where inconsistent use of the terms ‘crisis’

and ‘disaster’ can cause added uncertainty for partner countries and agencies of the individual

institutional responsibilities of the EU’s external action mechanisms, and the responses of the

EU to emergency situations. If the limitations of lexis and subsequent praxis from EU

institutional mechanisms are not revealed in policy formation, this can have serious

consequences on individuals at risk, as the context of the assistance surrounding the

emergency is unclear. Not only do the risk of rights abuses increases with potentially

weakened community structures in a natural disaster context, but if the lexis within policy of

93

European Community, The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, Brussels: Official Journal 2008/C

25/01, 2008, 94



European Commission, 2009, 95

European Commission, The Cotonou agreement, (Ouagadougou, European Commission,2010), Article 72.

42

those providing assistance surrounding a crisis is in reference to warfare only, individuals can

remain unprotected and at risk of rights abuses.

The lack of consistent lexis can lead to potential issues of child protection in the

implementation of external action due to unclear definitions of what ‘crisis’ or ‘disaster’

situations represent, and a subsequent lack of delineation of the mandates across the EU

institutions. Varying terminology is also evident in the 2008 EEAS ‘Children in External

Action policy package.96

The references to ‘crisis’ in the Communication and Action Plan,

albeit nominal, can be considered in general terms, whereas in the supporting document,

‘Children in Emergency and Crises Situations,’ the 47 mentions of the term are explicitly

surrounding conflict scenarios. In comparison, the use of ‘disaster’ in the policy package is

solely towards natural disasters, and does not imply any protection measures towards

manmade situations, whether in terms of conflict, or technical and industrial disaster

situations. As such, a disunited response to situations surrounding children can cause

confusion between the EU and its implementing partners.

However, it is not only the lexical preferences of EU institutions, which can lead to these

issues, but also the lexis employed by EU Member States, which shape the European

Community’s approach to external emergency situations. While the combined Official

Development Aid (ODA) of EU Member States represents a significant part of the European

aid fiscal envelope, there must be cohesion in the content of their aid policies to underpin the

funding of humanitarian aid overseas. Uniformity in their opinions is vital for the EU to be

seen as such an influential actor when it comes to world events. For the EU Member States,

there are inconsistencies in references to ‘disaster’ and ‘crisis’ in external policies. Those with

development aid policies primarily refer to ‘crises situations’, following the EU rule where

‘crisis’ is not in regard to natural situations, and yet is not confined to conflict scenarios, to

include economical, water and food crises. In some cases, there are references to natural

crises specifically, or broadly as humanitarian and general crises. Ireland and Poland’s

96

European Commission. A Special Place for Children in EU External Action [SEC(2008)135]. Brussels:

European Commission, 2008; European Commission. Children in Emergency and Crisis Situations [COM(2008)

55 final]. Brussels: European Commission, 2008; European Commission. The European Union’s Action Plan on

Children’s Rights in External Action [COM(2008) 55 final]. Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

43

development policies are solely in reference to disaster situations, with no mention of crises,

where disasters are either in reference to natural or general situations, and consequently could

imply manmade situations. There is only one case where ‘disaster’ refers uniquely to conflict

scenarios, as indicated by Romania’s development policy. All of the six Member States with

humanitarian policies which indicate ‘crises’ classify them as general to include

circumstances other than conflict to include food, economic, and terrorism.97

All of Austria’s

130 references to disasters, and 27 references to ‘crises,’ are in a neutral sense to include both

natural and manmade situations. The European states with human rights policies represent

emergencies through the virtually exclusive use of ‘disaster’ or ‘crisis’ lexis. Besides

Sweden’s human rights policy, in which a crisis refers to warfare, the other three states depict

situations as general, to include both natural and manmade crises. The latter trend is positive

in the recognition of human rights, to ensure a holistic approach to action against human

rights abuses in emergencies, as it emphasises rights abuses do not uniquely take place within

the context of warfare, but also surrounding the disaster cycle. For instance, in its child-

centric policy, Denmark approaches crises as general, to include both conflict and natural

conditions, and similarly with the use of ‘disasters’, where both natural and general situations

are included. It should be noted that while a universal approach to emergencies can include

both manmade and natural emergencies by default, explicit mentions of what crises and

disasters represent assist in reinforcing the international commitments of duty bearers against

rights abuses. If definitions are explicit, there are no gaps in policy, or legislative and

institutional barriers. The potential overlap of risks children can face in vulnerable situations

(manmade or natural) is not disregarded and they are subsequently protected.

2.2 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

Running in parallel to the analysis of cohesive policy formation is the evaluation of the

actions of the institutional structures. Kaldor cites institutional barriers as a primary hindrance

97

Member States with Humanitarian Aid policies are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland,

Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. Belgium did not have any references to crises or disasters. See Appendix

II for the details on these policies.

0%

10

%

20

%

30

%

40

%

50

%

60

%

70

%

80

%

90

%

10

0%

HA

DEV

DEV

CHILD

HA

HR

HA/DEV

DEV

DRR

HR

DEV

DRR

PARTNER

HA

DEV

DEV

PARTNER

HA

DEV

DEV

HA

DEV

DEV

HR

DEV

DEV

DEV

DEV

DEV

DEV

DEV

HR

DEV

HA

DRR

DRR

AT (B

)C

YC

Z (B)

DK

(A)

DK

(B)

DK

(D)

EEFI (A

)FI (B

)FR

(A)

FR (B

)D

E (A)

DE (B

)D

E (C)

HU

IE (A)

IE (B)

IE (C)

IT LV

LU (A

)LU

(B)

MT

NL(A

)N

L (B)

PL

PT (B

)R

OSK

SIES

SE (B)

SE(C)

UK

(A)

UK

(B)

UK

(C)

DISA

STER

CR

ISIS

44

for implementing a rights-based approach.98

With the primary function of protecting

individuals and groups, a sociological approach assists the effectiveness of core institutions in

reducing social vulnerabilities.99

In his investigations into institutional constructs and social

vulnerability, Turner maintains crises such as natural disasters have revealed the limitations of

institutions, particularly socio-political structures at a community level, which indeed were

designed to ‘reduce risks, prevent harms, and mitigate suffering.’100

In addition, Kaldor

indicates the need for “conceptual coherence”, based on mutual values and objectives, in

order for institutions to act successfully.101

Supplementary levels of policy administration can

hinder the effectiveness of the institution by enabling competition between the different

institutional mechanisms.102

This can be seen in the case of the EU, where different aspects of

the European Commission are involved in administering aspects of DRR activities at differing

points of the disaster cycle. The humanitarian directorate ECHO partners with selected

agencies, which may be equal to, or variable to, the partners chosen by the development EU

DG DEVCO. In either respect, the separation of the directorates reduces the effectiveness of

EU partnerships as each of these partners may be running similar aid programmes in either a

humanitarian (short term), or development (long term) capacity, or both.

Institutional changes under the Lisbon Treaty represented various opportunities for the EU to

increase effectiveness in its external mechanisms, and in turn, endeavour to increase its

influence as a global actor. The new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs

and Security Policy, with the assistance of the EEAS, gives the EU the potential to act in a

more unified manner in its external relations.103

The EEAS brings together the various areas

of EU foreign policy, in particular the Common Foreign and Security Policy and European

98

Mary Kaldor, Human Security: Reflections on Globalisation and Intervention, (Oxford: Wiley, 2013), 185. 99

Bryan S Turner, “A sociology of citizenship and human rights: Does social theory still exist?” in Interpreting

human rights – social science perspective, eds. R Morgan and B S Turner (London; New York:

Routledge,2009), 184. 100

Brian Gran, “Vulnerability and Human Rights,” Societies Without Borders 2 (2007): 293. 101


International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 287. 102

Ibid., 287. 103

Simon Duke, ‘The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations,’ European Institute of Public Administration, no.1,

2008, 15.

45

Security and Defence Policy, in conjunction with Member States’ diplomatic services.104

With the creation of the EEAS under the Lisbon Treaty, scholars have been examining the

role of new EU functionality in the EU’s foreign policy, to better comprehend its interaction

with existing mechanisms.105

However, little of this research focuses on the impact of the

EEAS on the existing EU humanitarian arm, DG ECHO. The rapport between the EEAS,

humanitarian arm, ECHO, and EuropeAid as part of the Directorate General for Development

Aid (DG DEVCO), is examined in the work of Holland and Doidge, in recognition of the

future impending impact of the institutional changes of the Lisbon Treaty on the effectiveness

of EU external action.106

In addition, there is emphasis in their work of the current precedence

of internal and local external concerns on the EU’s agenda, over the far-reaching external

action objectives.107

While a form of EU external action, humanitarian aid, and by association, DRR remains yet

to be incorporated into the EEAS. Such a decision to exclude humanitarian aid and DRR from

under the umbrella of the EEAS was based on the reasoning that humanitarian aid, and by

association DRR, should continue to be independently administered by DG ECHO. As stated

in a European Parliament Policy Briefing of the Lisbon Treaty, DG ECHO can then continue

to act autonomously, without the ‘potential ‘imposition’ of foreign policy priorities’.108

Conversely, one of the goals of the Lisbon Treaty was to streamline the EU’s mechanisms for

external actions and become more cohesive. This has been achieved in one facet of external

action through the joint 2010 Communication on EU civil protection and humanitarian

104

Gerald Quille, ‘Introduction: A new architecture for CFSP,’ The Lisbon Treaty and its implications for the

EU External Action, Brussels: Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, 2009, p. 5. 105

See Rafal Trzaskowski et al., “The European External Action Service: Consequences for EU Institutions and

Foreign Relations,” In International Politics in Times of Change, ed. Nikolaos Tzifakis, 79-97. Berlin: Springer-

Verlag, 2012; Steven Blockmans and Marja-Liisa Laatsit, “The European External Action Service: Enhancing

Coherence in EU External Action?” in EU external relations law and policy in the Post-Lisbon Era. ed. Paul

James Cardwell, 135-158. The Hague: T M C Asser Press, 2012; Michael Emerson and Piotr Maciej Kaczynski,

“Looking afresh at the external representation of the EU in the international arena, post-Lisbon,” Centre for

Europe Policy Studies Policy Brief 212, 2010; S Duke, “The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations,” European

Institute Public Administration 1, (2008):13-18; R G Whitman, Foreign, Security and Defence Policy and the

Lisbon Treaty: Significant or cosmetic reforms,” Global Europe Papers 1, 2008:1-8; Serena Kelly, The

European Union in the Asia-Pacific: current representations and the potential impact of the EEAS,

Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 2009. 106


Macmillan, 2012), 95-133. 107

Ibid, 133. 108

A Caprile, op. cit., p. 19.

46

assistance.109

The initiative transfers the Civil Protection mechanism to be administered under

ECHO, but with the support and implementation of the EEAS. In theory, the merger or shift

of external action instruments could hinder the upholding of EU values such as human rights.

Operating through two separate EU bodies could mean human rights are marginalised, or

side-lined, in lieu of an immediate or needs-based approach, which does not focus on

safeguarding the rights of those at risk. Alternatively, joint initiatives could be considered a

positive move in the harmonisation of external action mechanisms as it could assist the

defence of human rights, as the EEAS policies tend to assume a slightly more human-rights

based approach than ECHO, which primarily employs needs-based implementation. The

union of mechanisms would then substantiate EU values, and the upholding of human rights

and increased protectionism through joint policies under the EU external action umbrella.

Under ECHO, the EU created the mechanism Disaster Preparedness ECHO (DIPECHO), in

1996. Thanks to an increased awareness from the EU of the importance of DRR, DIPECHO

was established to assist with the coordination of an internal EU DRR strategy and DRR

actions, while also supporting any DRR actions carried out by European organisations present

in third countries. The EU currently carries out humanitarian action through its 200

Framework Partnership Agreements (FPA) with various European government bodies,

European non-government organisations (NGO), United Nations divisions, and international

agencies located within EU Member States. The coordination of EU-funded humanitarian

projects is thus undertaken by these partnering organisations. These FPA agencies will, in

turn, cooperate with local organisations or government agencies based in a recipient country

to carry out humanitarian programmes, and report back to DIPECHO on progress periodically

and with the final results of the project. It is thus through these partnerships, the EU facilitates

humanitarian and DRR action in third countries. Those agencies wishing to obtain EU

funding for their humanitarian projects must first attain an FPA with ECHO, which are

renewed on a regular basis. In this sense, the Community remains solely within a donor

capacity, keeping with the neutrality and impartiality aspects of the Paris Declaration, and its

donorship principles.110

The implementation of policy initiatives through external actors is

109

European Commission, “Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and

humanitarian assistance,” Brussels: European Commission, 2010. 110

OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (OECD, 2005).

47

unlike other foreign policy interests of the EU, such as CSDP missions, which are undertaken

through the dispatchment of EU troops, with the aim of illustrating the EU’s ambition to act

autonomously, without the assistance or coordination of other actors, such as NATO. While

DG ECHO can dispatch people in certain large-scale emergency scenarios if required,

manpower is primarily coordinated by the partner organisations.

The institutional configuration of the European Commission denotes DRR is facilitated by

DIPECHO, aligning with ECHO, the EU humanitarian assistance arm, as opposed to

positioning DRR as a development issue. From an institutional perspective, project phases

undertaken under the EU’s development arm tend to be longer, allowing for more to be

achieved, and in doing so, ensures reduced vulnerability at a local level. To identify the

phases of the disaster cycle, which DIPECHO is accountable for, Figure 2.2 indicates at what

point DRR is traditionally implemented.

Figure 2.2 EU Management of DRR and the disaster cycle

For the EU, DRR implementation under ECHO as the humanitarian arm denotes its aid

programme is based on short-term implementation, or, immediate risks to a person’s

wellbeing – namely, food, shelter and water. This is reflected in the needs-based approach in

EVENT

RESPONSE

RECOVERY

RECONSTRUCTION

MITIGATION

PREVENTION

PREPAREDNESS

DIPECHO

DIPECHOO

DRR

DRR

DEVCO

ECHO

48

the financing of DRR projects through implementation partners. While the EU promotes a

results-based approach to financing humanitarian assistance, the current quantifiable nature of

the ‘results’ of EU assistance indicates a focus on needs, with primary FPA partner project

financing information stating, “DG ECHO is a needs-based donor and funding allocations are

based on the evaluation of needs.”111

Yet effective results-based measurement of facilitating

humanitarian assistance cannot be solely reliant on tangible measures of needs, such as

quantitative targets or key performance indicators. A comprehensive approach to risk and the

application of DRR recognises risks based on social vulnerability, as in line with the rights-

based approach and the human security model. It ensures social risks are accounted for in the

provision of assistance. As Cutter et al support, social vulnerability has previously been

considered too difficult to quantify,112

and is often absent in DRR programming as part of

activities under ECHO. This is, again, essentially due to the traditional approaches of ECHO

in dealing with disaster relief, based on the provision of need. As one EU official stated:

“Disaster relief is one of the least political subjects, because

it’s according to needs.”113

The shift of needs-based external action to acknowledge all forms of risk requires not only

policy transformation, but a change in mind-set. The use of business management models in

an emergency context focuses too heavily on the technical aspects of response, but the overall

disaster risk framework (which incorporates the response and rescue aspect as well as the

other aspects of the disaster framework) should include qualitative measures of prevention,

response, and recovery, as part of the strategic thinking surrounding risk, and the

implementation of risk assessments. As stated by one partner organisation working on EU

financed projects:

“That is completely massive shift for the sector to take on, it

has to, but it doesn’t have the tools, it doesn’t have the

111

Excerpt from DG ECHO Partners’ website, “Needs Assessments and Beneficiaries,” http://dgecho-partners-

helpdesk.eu, Accessed: 24 February 2014. 112

Cutter et al., “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards,” Social Science Quarterly 84, no. 2, (2003):

242-261. 113

European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Cabinet, 4/11/2010.

http://dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu/


49

expertise. It thinks it has the expertise sometimes I think...

Essentially, they’ve never dealt with risk. They’ve only ever

dealt with impact. And it’s dealing with uncertainty...you

have to with dealing with risk, and even if it’s risk that is

almost certain to happen, like a certain magnitude

earthquake within a certain timeframe, it still having to

weight up.”114

This is supported by the FPA partners which implement EU-funded DRR projects under

DIPECHO:

“Even on the DIPECHO or the ECHO simple form that you

use to write a proposal, there is not risk assessment, there is

need assessment. They have not changed any thinking.”115

In turn, the filtration of DRR programming through ECHO to DIPECHO, and the underlying

conception of focussing on needs of those at risk, can affect how the Commission wishes to

reduce the risks surrounding disasters. Attached to its humanitarian arm, DRR programming

is linked heavily to disaster response, and preparedness to respond, while a holistic approach

to the reduction of disaster risk concerns the entire disaster cycle – from the event, response

and recovery, through to reconstruction and mitigation and preparedness. As such, there can

be a collision of approaches towards the implementation of DRR, when DRR programming is

undertaken through activities under ECHO and DEVCO, as part of development assistance

for climate change adaptation (CCA). CCA is carried out through the Intra-ACP agreement,

or EuropeAid if undertaken in non-ACP regions. One EU representative viewed the

assistance as unmistakably different, despite this overlap in activities, however in a statement

by one EU official, the overlap of institutions and DRR activities became clear:

114

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/9/2012 115

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/9/2012

50

“Indirectly we have two projects: one is implemented by

ECHO, our office in Brussels, and regional office in BKK.

That is really on DRR – it targets not the whole country but

just a few communities...Then we have the project on climate

change, but that’s also to do with DRR and CCA – there are

some linkages, but there is not a specific project focussing on

DRR...”116

Consequently, the institutional overlap between DG ECHO and DEVCO in responding to

DRR as both humanitarian and development assistance is reflected at a local level, where

DRR is implemented under both mechanisms, and can cause difficulties for implementing

partners, and indeed the projects undertaken in-country.

The multiplicity of Directorate Generals, and overlap of responsibilities aforementioned

affects the EU’s relationship with implementing partners at a European level. There is

recognition from FPA partners of the bureaucratic intricacies of the external mechanisms of

the European Commission. European organisations interviewed for this research, which had

previously received funding from the EU, describe the EU’s institutional setup for

implementing DRR in Figure 2.3 below:

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

“I found the people to be very flexible in making things work within the framework they

were under...”117

EUROPEAN DRR

PRACTITIONER

“I think if you work in a bureaucracy you’ve got to see it as compartmentalised because

your life just doesn’t make sense otherwise.118

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

“I think it’s improving greatly. When it first started, everyone was like, that’s a bit

disappointing because it’s a really short term project... It was also very heavily focused

on emergency response and relief, which is fair enough, I guess, given their history...but

I think we, the DRR practitioners, are always pushing for longer term projects...”119

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

“DIPECHO, ECHO, the whole infrastructure, it’s been development – humanitarian

response, very separate...and there’s been no dealing with risk.”120

116


Interview excerpt, ICRC, 27/9/2012. 118


Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/09/2012 120

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/09/2012.

51

ORGANISATION

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

“There is a big divide between the short term (DG ECHO) and long term (DG DEVCO)

... The various internal EU bodies and mechanisms are not yet communicative

internally.”121

Figure 2.3 Attitudes of European FPA partners towards the EU institutional structure

for DRR programming

There are different opinions from European organisations on the effectiveness of the EU’s

institutional setup for implementing DRR. The variations of opinions suggest that there is

conflicting views from FPA agencies of the EU implementation mechanisms for DRR within

the bureaucratic structures at EU-level. Some believe that despite the complex

institutionalisation of DRR, the ECHO staff assisted partner organisations in facilitating EU-

funded programming. While others believed that the division between humanitarian and

development meant that disaster risk reduction fell into the grey area between the institutions

of ECHO and DEVCO. This not only reflects on the internal perceptions of risk from within

the EU, but impacts on their ability to facilitate DRR programming.

Even so, the more positive view of ECHO staff as accommodating suggests that the

framework for ECHO assistance is complex and required revision for ECHO staff to better

assist the FPA partners with project implementation. As cited above, the density of EU

mechanisms for implementing DRR is evident, and the separation of humanitarian aid and

development aid via DG ECHO and DG DEVCO seems to be the crux of the issue from the

FPA partner perspective. While it is necessary to compartmentalise such a large organisation

into the various Directorate Generals and funding mechanisms, the issue lies in how they

have structured the humanitarian and development assistance instruments. The institutional

divide between DG ECHO and DG DEVCO affects the resultant implementation of effective

DRR at a local level. Producing a grey area between humanitarian and development

assistance does not promote reduced vulnerability, but can in fact increase local levels of

vulnerability - a subsequent disregard for the upholding of rights of those at risk.122

121

Interview excerpt, UNICEF, 28/08/2012. 122

Joanna Harrington, “R2P and natural disasters,” The Routledge Handbook on R2P, eds. W Andy Knight and

Frazer Egerton (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 147.

52

Consequently, it is necessary that partnerships are facilitated at an institutional level, to

ensure the effective implementation of DRR programming, throughout the project cycle.

Chapter IV and V discuss further potential amendments to compartmentalising EU external

action mechanisms for more effective DRR programming, as well as examining how this

compartmentalisation plays out in the partnerships at a European and local level.

Institutional disorganisation is not limited to the European Commission, where thematic

overlap amongst the committees in the European Parliament also causes confusion. The

assortment of committees found in the Parliament, which have a vested interest in the

different stages of disaster management, such as that of development (DEVE), environment

(ENVI), or foreign affairs (AFET), can produce a confusion of power over legislature. While

the combined influence of these committees in a Directive results in a comprehensive policy,

it does provide for a power struggle when a decision cannot be made as to which committee

will be largely responsible for the Directive. Thus, the procedure is prolonged, not least on the

content to be debated, but on which Committee will be in charge of the policy itself.

Consequently, when presented with a new Communication on European Disaster

Preparedness from the Commission for the Parliament to debate,123

the system imploded. One

Member of the European Parliament, as Rapporteur in charge of the Communication, was

baffled by the change of committees. He explains:

“...In the past these issue has been within the sphere of

competences of the ENVI committee, and well, at the first

glance it seems more logical to me because this is, in many

aspects, this is mainly an environmental issue. Of course we

deal with other issues, environmental issues on the ENVI

committee which have a global dimension, not restricted to

the EU, for instance climate change. It’s also an issue from

the environmental sphere, but it’s also to do with the third

123

European Commission, A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters (COM

(2009)82, Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

53

world, with many developing countries, that’s the same with

disasters – either prevention or response. So why to move it

to DEVE just because it has implications on developing

countries? It has a global dimension - that is not sufficient to

move it to DEVE.”124

Despite the decision to assign issues of disaster preparedness and prevention to DEVE,

confusion continues as ENVI is in charge of climatic issues, while AFET is charged with

decisions on immediate humanitarian aid, including conflict situations. Having different

committees in charge of the different stages of disaster mitigation can cause chaos for those

interacting with the European Parliament, particularly NGOs. Non-state actors are often

invited into the decision-making process as external authorities for a particular piece of

legislation and are encouraged to provide their own opinions and possible amendments for a

particular directive.

The European Council is not exempt from political cleavages exist where political and

ideological divides are evident in the policy formation (lexis) and practice (praxis) of Member

States. Content analysis has demonstrated similarities and variations in EU Member State

DRR and child protection policy formation. Member States do not necessarily unite in their

foreign policy aid or human rights approaches in so much that it is possible to catalogue

Member States into North-South, or East-West divides. Chapter Four will provide an in-depth

comparative analysis of Member State policy approaches to review indications of these geo-

political inclinations in political cleavages amongst Member States. Furthermore, Member

State alignment may be found in the categorisation of old and new Member States, and their

practical approaches of aid delivery and FPA partner activity trends, as Chapter Five will

demonstrate.

124

Interview excerpt, Del to ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly / Committee on ENVI, 11/11/ 2010.

54

Given that the Parliament and Council have recently attained the position of co-legislator

through the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty,125

it is consequently in the interest of external

actors to collaborate with the Parliament, the Community and Member States, in order to

become influential in the formation of policies. However, this influence is diminished if the

system is confused and partners remain unsure of EU-related roles, principles, and practices.

For the parliament this is in relation to the underlying principles and activities surrounding

directives, while for the European Council, the underlying principles and the direction of

Member States’ policy objectives towards DRR and human rights. With the increased

acknowledgement from the EU, its institutions and its Member States of their role in disaster

management, there needs to be consensus on who is going to deal with all or any of the stages

of disaster management. Harmonisation at an EU internal level affects the translation of

various foreign policy mechanisms into coherent actions with partner regions and countries.

When considering the geographic focus of the EU’s humanitarian action, discussions on the

Community’s presence overseas often centre on the African continent, rather than

investigating EU humanitarian action further afield. The 2009 DRR Communication, as the

current EU strategy to reduce risks in developing countries, which focuses on the EU’s

overseas DRR strategy 126

includes both regions of South-East Asia and the Pacific. The 2011

implementation plan advanced on the 2009 DRR Communication as it outlined areas of

regional interaction to create regional action plans for DRR, as well as the need for stronger

interaction between Member States and local actors.127

Content analysis of EU and Member State policies indicated the Asia-Pacific region is rarely

mentioned in EU or Member States’ policies.128

Where applicable, emphasis remained on

South East Asian countries, with a disregard for assistance in Pacific Island nations. Natural

disasters continue to be a severe threat to states within the Asia Pacific region. Whether

125

European Community, Consolidated version of the Treaty of the European Union. Brussels: Official Journal

of the European Union C83/13, (2010): Article 14.1. 126



European Commission, 2009. 127

European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation Plan of the EU Strategy for

supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries 2011-2014, (Brussels: European Commission, 2011.) 128

See Appendix II for terms included in content analysis.

55

frequent or infrequent, they bring with them a number of associated risks to all levels of a

community, requiring a crucial amount of forward thinking to reduce such threats.

Regional intergovernmental institutions have, nevertheless, been increasing their disaster

management strategies. In a move to streamline disaster risk management, and disaster

responses, some regions have maximised policy coherence in disaster management through

capacity building, and disaster response procedural arrangements, such as the entry to disaster

sites. 129

Moreover, there is often a spill-over from the management of disasters as a political issue to

influence other areas of regional interaction. This is particularly the case in disaster risk

management where effective disaster risk management relies on the maximisation of available

resources, and the avoidance of duplicity in the provisions in the response and phases of a

disaster. Regional knowledge exchange between emergency responders, practitioners and

government entities assist in the cost-efficiency of disaster risk management. However, these

regional collaborations in disaster management continue to surround the technical aspects of

disaster management, rather than the social vulnerabilities of disasters, which also require a

regional approach such as displacement as an impact of a disaster.

The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery reported in 2013 the involvement of

intergovernmental organisations, such as ASEAN,130

have strengthened their disaster risk

management capabilities, particularly in risk assessments and the development of DRR policy

and practices. For its relationship with South East Asia, the EU interacts with ASEAN as the

regional body, with a Plan of Action to strengthen the EU-ASEAN partnership in cooperating

through political dialogue, the EU’s role in humanitarian assistance, and cooperation on

human rights. In particular, through ASEAN’s human rights intergovernmental commission

(AICHR).131

Despite this regional human rights mechanism, and an acknowledgement within

ASEAN of the advantages of the human security model to assist in regional insecurity issues

129

Thomas W. Haase, “International Disaster Resilience,” in Designing Resilience, eds. Comfort et al.,

(Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 226. 130

Association of Southeast Asian Nations 131

European Commission, Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU enhanced

partnership (2013-2017), (Bandar Seri Begawan, 2012).

56

including political, economic and social instabilities, there is still a focus on state security

over the individual, in both ASEAN policy and decision-making.132

The EU relies on its interaction with the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) to engage in dialogue

surrounding the areas of Pacific governance and the protection of human rights. In particular,

the EU acts through the ACP partnership Cotonou Agreement, in addition to a regional

strategy document,133

yet both have a significant lack of references to regional interactions in

DRR programming. Through the PIF, 14 Pacific Island states,134

along with New Zealand and

Australia have accrued collaborative views on topics affecting the region set out in the Pacific

Plan, in order to strengthen regional cooperation, a policy established in 2005 and reviewed

intermittently.135

Independent inter-governmental regional organisations, such as the

Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), and its scientific arm SOPAC, in the Pacific

exemplify regional assistance throughout the disaster cycle, by facilitating knowledge

exchange amongst regional actors of hazard mitigation efforts, and response strategies.136

While the PIF recognises the role of human security in regional cooperation,137

and the

benefits of regional DRR coordination,138

there are still areas where risks overlap and can be

better addressed through maximising on regional ties and joint objectives surrounding DRR.

The 2011 DRR implementation plan highlights the Pacific as a pilot case-in-point in the

support of regional dialogue.139

The enlargement of the DIPECHO programme into other

132

ASEAN Secretariat, “Realizing Human Security in Asia,” Statement from Former Secretary General H. E. Dr

Surin Pitsuwan. http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-56/speeches-statements-of-the-former-

secretaries-general-of-asean/item/message-from-the-secretary-general-of-asean-he-dr-surin-pitsuwan-for-the-

realizing-human-security-in-asia-symposium-at-the-university-of-tokyo. Accessed: 19 September 2013. 133

European Commission. Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme 2008-2013.

(Strasbourg: European Commission, 2008).

134 Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea,

Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu. 135

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, The Pacific Plan: For Strengthening Regional Cooperation and

Integration, (Suva: PIF Secretariat, 2005). 136

John E. Hay, Roles of the Pacific Regional Organisations in Disaster Risk Management, (Brookings-LSE

Project on Internal Displacement), 2013. 137

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Human Security Framework for the Pacific 2012-2015, (Suva: PIF

Secretariat, 2012). 138

At the time of writing, Pacific states and DRR regional actors drafted the “Strategy for Climate and Disaster

Resilient Development in the Pacific.” In 2013, Pacific CCA and DRM actors adopted the regional

communiqué. Disaster Risk Management for Sustainable Development in Pacific Island Countries – The Need

for Leadership by Central Agencies,(Suva: SOPAC, 2013). 139


supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries 2011-2014, (Brussels: European Commission, 2011.)

http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-56/speeches-statements-of-the-former-secretaries-general-of-asean/item/message-from-the-secretary-general-of-asean-he-dr-surin-pitsuwan-for-the-realizing-human-security-in-asia-symposium-at-the-university-of-tokyo



57

regions is positive, particularly with regards the 2009 ‘Commission Decision on the financing

of disaster preparedness actions in the Pacific,’140

as the EU’s implementation of a Pacific

strategy for DRR. Yet the regional approach mentioned is exclusive to the Melanesia sub-

region, and excludes other Pacific countries, which are also vulnerable to disasters, both

natural and man-made. The Pacific has made advances in regional interaction of disaster

management, yet in some cases there are still gaps in DRR approaches. The Pacific and EU

regions would gain from increased dialogue to shift from the realms of technical assistance to

include social vulnerabilities.

2.3 FOREIGN POLICY PRAXIS TOWARDS DRR PROGRAMMING

There tends to be little examination of the implementation of DRR policy formation whether

in terms of states’ domestic legislation, or donors’ foreign policy initiatives. A significant

proportion of literature in the field focuses on implementing DRR to counter the effects of

natural disasters in terms of climate change adaptation.141

In his comprehensive report

“Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and emergency

programming,” Twigg explored a range of aspects surround DRR policy formation and

implementation, with reference to various global case studies, and drew attention to the

institutionalisation of DRR through policy formation at a national level, underlining the

various ways of implementing DRR for developing countries.142

However the concept of DRR

policy formation could be taken further to evaluate the institutionalisation of DRR as part of a

donor capacity in foreign policy.

Through their research for Tearfund,143

La Trobe and Venton investigated several donor

profiles where DRR was implemented to reduce the risks of natural disasters. The report

140

European Commission, Commission decision of on the financing of disaster preparedness actions in the

Pacific [ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/07000], (Brussels: European Commission, 2009). 141

See Geoff O'Brien, et al., "Climate Change and Disaster Management." Disasters 30, no. 1 (2006): 64-80;

Frank Thomalla et al. "Reducing Hazard Vulnerability: Towards a Common Approach between Disaster Risk

Reduction and Climate Adaption." Disasters 30, no. 1 (2006): 39-4; Davies, Mark, Katy Oswald, and Tom

Mitchell, Climate Change Adaption, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Social Protection (Paris: Organisation of

Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009). 142

Twigg, John, Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and Emergency

Programming (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004). 143

Sarah La Trobe and Paul Venton, Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice of selected

institutional donors (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003).

58

emphasised the role of disaster management in closing the gap between emergency and

development aid, which this research sees as crucial to reduce vulnerability of communities

prone to disasters. However, the report did not accentuate the potential overlap of manmade

disasters in terms of policy formation, as this research does, and focussed solely on reducing

the risks of natural disasters through donor capacities. Through consultations with experts and

policy makers, the report underscored the primary causes for DRR being overlooked as a lack

of knowledge on DRR, and the difficulty in situating DRR in development and humanitarian

aid spheres. These are all factors which this thesis has also uncovered in the course of its

research on the EU’s strategy to implement disaster risk reduction into its own foreign policy.

Indeed, it is believed that such factors are interlinked and stem from states and policy makers

not acknowledging DRR as a facet of foreign policy, hence for the purpose of this research,

La Trobe and Venton’s findings have been amended accordingly:

Figure 2.4 Cause and effect of overlooking DRR in foreign policy.144

144

Source: amended from the findings of Sarah La Trobe and Paul Venton, Natural Disaster Risk Reduction:

The policy and practice of selected institutional donors (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003), 8.

DRR is not recognised as an important

facet of Foreign Policy

Lack of knowledge and understanding of DRR

Risk reduction ‘competes’ with other pressing development

needs.

Institutional factors impeding DRR from full integration into

Foreign Policy

The vague position of DRR due to grey

area between ‘relief’ and

‘development’ sectors

59

As shown in Figure 2.4 above, there are many interrelated grounds for the lack of

implementation of DRR into donors’ foreign policies, particularly concerning the overlap of

humanitarian aid and developmental aid policies. Sarah La Trobe and Paul Venton, through

the Tearfund organisation, have highlighted the institutional barriers of natural disaster DRR,

with particular reference to the EU,145

without taking a regional or community-based approach

to review the repercussions of these institution barriers at a local level, as highlighted in the

human security model.

Critics of EU foreign policy, acknowledge the increasing presence of humanitarian aid into its

global agenda over recent decades.146

Versluys elaborates on this evolution in EU policy,

stating that in conjunction with its humanitarian aid policies, the EU relies solely on its

coordination with other actors, whether governmental, non-governmental or international, to

deliver aid to third countries, rather than establishing its own service for executing its aid

operations.147

This research agrees with Versluys, where the author affirms that despite

increases in policy formation, the variations of domestic policies in Europe hinder the EU’s

external image as donor towards assistance in humanitarian crises.148

In a holistic examination

of European foreign policy and its influence on domestic policy, Smith examines the idea of

perceived political cooperation as influenced by several key factors: elite socialisation,

bureaucratic reorganisation, constitutional change, and public support for harmonisation

amongst EU and domestic policies.149

These factors still exist with regards to the influences of

145


institutional donors, (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003). 146

See Helen Versluys, “Depoliticising and Europeanising Humanitarian Aid: Success or Failure?” Perspectives

on European Politics and Society 9, no. 2 (2008): 208-224; Helen Versluys, “European Union Humanitarian

Aid: Lifesaver or Political Tool?” in Europe’s Global Role External Policies of the European Union, ed J Orbie

(Avebury: Ashgate, 2008), 91 – 115; Michael E. Smith, “Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU

foreign policy co-operation,” Journal of European Public Policy 7, no. 4 (2000): 613-31; S Keukeleire and J

Macnaughtan. The Foreign Policy of the European Union (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) ; Michele

Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen, Understanding the European Union’s external relations (New York: Routledge,

2003). 147

Helen Versluys, ‘Depoliticising and Europeanising Humanitarian Aid: Success or Failure?’ Perspectives on

European Politics and Society 9, no. 2 (2008): 209. 148

Ibid, 223. 149

Michael E. Smith, “Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU foreign policy co-operation,” Journal

of European Public Policy 7, no. 4 (2000): 613-31.

60

current EU humanitarian and DRR policies on Member States’ legislation, but to what extent?

In their policy analysis of policy discourse of the upholding of human rights across EU

institutions, Landman and Larizza stated that while there are numerous channels for the

implementation of EU policy objectives, the EU can employ its ‘economic and political

leverage’ to endorse the upholding of human rights.150

Keane believes there is an increase in

employing human security to aspects of external action, primarily conflict-based, including

from the EU.151

Yet the ideology behind human rights, and perceived complexities to realise

rights as part of foreign policy continues to prevent legislators from fully acknowledging

rights in legislation and subsequent actions. Perhaps the international conventions are not

complex enough so the endorsement from states serves merely to avoid persecution from the

international community, but states fail to ratify them by applying a rights-based approach to

their subsequent engagement in international affairs, as some cynics would suggest.152

Human security accentuates the interconnectivity of states, communities and individuals,

which is, in part, due to the ever-increasing sense of globalisation whether through political,

economic, social, cultural, health, technological, or environmental trends. Multilateral

interactions and involvement of the international community in disaster risk management

emphasise the global context for reducing disaster risks. Some argue the increased

involvement of international organisations in emergencies, whether manmade or natural, has

been brought about by the enhancement of approaches to insecurities, where national security

is complemented by a human security approach.153

Alternatively, the model can be seen to

restrain the autonomy of states, with the assertion that no nation can ignore its responsibilities

under international law.154

Axworthy explains the value of multilateralism is then emphasised

150

Todd Landman, and Marco Larizza, EU policy discourse: democracy, governance, and human rights,

(Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2010), 11. 151

Rory Keane, “EU Foreign Policy Motivation: A Mix of Human Security and Realist Elements.” in A decade

of Human Security: Global Governance and New Multilateralism, eds. Sandra J MacLean et al. (Aldershot:

Ashgate, 2006), 39-53. 152

J Samuel Barken, International Organisations: Theories and Institutions, (New York: Palgrave Macmillann

2013), 51. 153

John Degnbol-Martinussen and Paul Engberg-Pedersen, Aid: Understanding international development

cooperation, (Borgergade: Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, 2005), 205. 154

Rob McRae, Human Security and the new diplomacy, eds. Rob McRae and Don Hubert, (Quebec: McGill-

Queen’s University Press, 2001), 252.

61

within the human security discourse, where multilateral institutions are viewed as an essential

component for global stability, through the substantiation of international standards.155

This is emphasised at a regional level where insecurities such as economic crises, movement

of people, epidemics, and manmade and natural disasters, often disregard nation-state borders

to inflict regional consequences.156

Responsibilities surrounding a natural disaster are often

unmet by national administrations and require an inter-state approach for effective

management. It is in the interests of states to engage in a regional disaster risk management to

minimise the effects of a natural disaster where the ensuing chaos can overextend regional

governance configurations and processes, and lead to regional destabilisation.157

Comfort et

al. state that for disaster management decision-making to achieve maximum effect,

intergovernmental institutions must utilise multi-stakeholder dialogue for the identification

and assessment of risk. Collective engagement at a community level with stakeholders will

assist in more effective disaster risk management.158

This approach can to be broadened to

cover all phases of the disaster cycle, and must ensure the decision-making at the top level

corresponds with activity at the community level, through the participation of all stakeholders

at all levels.

Collective engagement amongst policy makers and stakeholders brings to the fore the question

of disasters as a global security risk. The internationalisation of disaster risk is assisted by the

human security model, in promoting an inter-governmental attitude to reducing disaster risk.

Yet states are not unanimous in their acceptance of the foreign policy model, anxious of

yielding sovereignty to a multilateral approach to security risk reduction.159

The extent to

which international actors are answerable for the protection of individuals or groups is

debatable, but the fact remains the international community do have responsibilities in some

155

Lloyd Axworthy, “Human Security: An opening for UN Reform,” in The United Nations and Global

Security, eds. Richard M. Price and Mark W Zacher, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 246. 156

Mary Kaldor et al., ‘Human Security: a new strategic narrative for Europe,’ International Affairs 83, no. 2

(2007): 285. 157

Jurgen Scheffran et al, Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Crises (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012), 5. 158

Comfort et al., “Designing adaptive systems,” Designing resilience: preparing for extreme events, eds.

Louise K. Comfort et al, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 35. 159

Rob McRae, Human Security and the new diplomacy, eds. Rob McRae and Don Hubert, (Quebec: McGill-

Queen’s University Press, 2001), 252.

62

form.160

The interactions between international actors in carrying out those responsibilities

then becomes the basis for exploration of praxis, at an international, regional and local level to

review influences on the levels of protection bestowed on those in at-risk communities.

Since the formation of the Hyogo Framework Agreement (HFA), under the UNISDR,161

policy makers and practitioners are strengthening disaster risk management through the

international substantiation for the implementation of the HFA on addressing disaster risk,

validating the agreement from states of the need to address disaster risk. The HFA is based on

the five main priorities outlined in the Framework: governance, risk identification and

assessment, knowledge and education, hazard and risk reduction, and disaster preparedness

and response.

Figure 2.5 Priorities of the HFA.162

According to the HFA, states needed to show they addressed the five identified priority areas

through DRR policy formation and subsequent implementation measures, to be established by

2015. These priorities are applied to the local context, and through the employ of local

ownership with recognition of culture and traditional approaches, ensuring a multi-stakeholder

to include civil society and the private sector, and cross-cutting issues, as core aspects to

implementing community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM).163

In addition to

160

Ian Smillie, “Whose security? Innovation and responsibility, perception and reality,” in A decade of Human

Security, eds. Sandra J. MacLean, David R. Black, Timothy M. Shaw, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 19. 161

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building Resilience

of Nations and Communities to Disasters (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005). 162


of Nations and Communities to Disasters (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005). 163


of Nations and Communities to Disasters (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005), 19.

I) Governance (organisational, legal and policy frameworks);

II) Risk identification, assessment, monitoring and early warning;

III) Knowledge management and education;

IV) Reducing underlying risk factors;

V) Preparedness for effective response and recovery.

63

applying DRR to all phases of a disaster, which are not addressed, there are also the identified

priorities to address through the HFA as the international framework for DRR. 164

“If you look

at the HFA priorities, you know, along with the cross-cutting issues, well it’s even less than

that.” 165

The narrow view of DRR applications coincides with some concerns of the

international framework for DRR, the HFA. The priorities of the Hyogo Framework

demonstrated the commitment from states to reduce the risks associated with disasters, to be

addressed accordingly through policy change and implementation of DRR throughout the

levels of governance. Yet despite the high-level buy in by government officials and policy

makers, the difficulty lies in the translation of recognition of DRR in policy to holistic

implementation of DRR on the ground for communities to withstand disaster risk, at all

phases of a disaster. In a discussion on the shift from DRR policy to practice, and how

methodical and comprehensive DRR was achieved at the various levels of governance, one

practitioner observed:

“To be honest, I don’t know. I think you’d have to measure

change in decades rather than a few years, but it’s a milestone

which has been passed, and there is an understanding that one

has to go further.”166

The irony lies in the fact that of the interview participants active in implementing DRR in-

country, the majority did not recognise the HFA as a tool for implementing DRR, or indeed in

some cases, they did not know about the Agreement at all.

EUROPEAN

DRR

PRACTITIONER

“I speak to my partners and I ask them what they think of it, and they haven’t heard of it.”167

164

The HFA priorities are: I) Governance (organisational, legal and policy frameworks); II) Risk identification,

assessment, monitoring and early warning; III) Knowledge management and education; IV) Reducing

underlying risk factors; V)Preparedness for effective response and recovery. 165

Interview excerpt, World Vision [regional], 29/8/2012. 166


Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/9/2012.

64

UNICEF “I’m not very much acquainted with it.”168

UNDP “I haven’t actually grasped or understood the Hyogo Framework, it’s signed in Japan on

DRR. That’s a good point.”169

IN-COUNTRY

DRR

PRACTITIONER

“I haven’t really spent a lot of time looking at Hyogo, to be honest.”170

DONOR

AGENCY

“I’ve heard about it but I don’t know enough about it to comment on it, but maybe that’s

part of the problem in that I don’t know enough about it, unless I went digging, how it

affects me, or the work ... in this country, so maybe that’s something the people who

develop it need to do more of. “171

Figure 2.6 In-country views on the HFA as an implementing tool for DRR

These examples of lack of recognition of the international framework depict a lack of

recognition of the international framework as the foundation for global DRR implementation.

Moreover, as the initial quotation suggests, there is a disparity between FPA agencies and

their partners in the acknowledgment of the framework. Perhaps the lack of recognition of the

HFA is due to the fact the Framework outlined the work needed to be done, without the

inclusion of mechanisms in the framework to assist policy makers and practitioners in the

implementation of DRR in-country. Moreover, the view of preparedness throughout the HFA

focuses on response and recovery, as short term risk reduction. This concern is augmented by

the fact that priorities in the HFA do not align with the whole disaster cycle. Measures to be

implemented in achieving these priorities coincide with different phases of the disaster cycle,

and compartmentalise rather than a whole-of-disaster approach to avoid grey areas. This lack

of acknowledgement of the international agreement for DRR programming to assist in

reducing vulnerability in-country can have implications on the donor-partner relationships,

where there is divergence between the policy objectives at an EU level to the implementation

of CBDRM in-country.

168

Interview excerpt UN Agency, 16/10/2012. 169

Interview excerpt UN Agency, 16/10/2012 170

Interview excerpt Save the Children, 18/10/2012. 171

Interview excerpt, AusAid, 16/10/2012.

65

2.4 COMMUNITY-BASED RISK MANAGEMENT

The previous sections have discussed the various aspects of DRR lexis and praxis channels for

DRR in foreign policy. Human security, with its acknowledgement of local level processes

and a human rights-based approach to policy implementation, can prove to have areas of

overlap with the implementation of community-based DRM, of which DRR is a facet. We can

draw on Dombrowsky’s perceptions of what could be considered as community resilience and

multi-stakeholder praxis where ‘perpetual action is often firmly established by rituals,

customs, norms, institutions, or organisations, which react upon human action like a silent but

unchangeable force of circumstances.’172

When evaluating human rights within the sphere of CBDRM, the implementation of DRR

policies can become a human rights issue. Carmalt and Dale explain that the creation of DRR

policies indicates a respect for the right to protection, in this case against a hazard or threat,

and as a consequence the employ of such legislation will then protect the lives of those at

risk.173

Whereas, if a state is aware of a frequent or infrequent form of disaster which it is

vulnerable to but does not generate a DRR policy or set of practices, it is in breach of its

obligation to protect its citizens and their right to life.174

Pelling and Dill broach the

politicisation of disasters at a local level, where societal norms and constructs can often be

called into question.175

Chaos surrounding the disaster cycle leads to increased vulnerability,

leading to the need to ensure rights are protected against violation. CBDRM policies and

practices must however remain specific to the community and cultures within which they are

formed.

Within the HFA, the role of donor agencies, international organisations, and non-

governmental organisations in financing and implementing community-based DRR projects is

172

W R Dombrowsky, “Again and Again: Is a disaster what we call “Disaster”?’ International journal of mass

emergencies and disasters 13, no. 3 (1995): 251. 173

Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale. "Human Rights and Disaster" in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. B Wisner et al, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 67. 174

Ibid, 68. 175

Mark Pelling and Kathleen Dill, “Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the adaptation of socio-

political regimes,” Progress in Human Geography 34, no. 21 (2010): 27.

66

also minimal. Figure 2.4 depicts the five key priorities of the HFA, along with influential

actors and cross-cutting themes:

Figure 2.7: CBDRM model based on the HFA priorities.

Article 22 of the HFA states that influence from such bodies in risk management is

coordinated through the state.176

This, often bilateral, approach to CBDRM thus contradicts

the implication of local ownership of the disaster risk management process. Some

implementing strategies recognise donor agencies,177

yet only in the final monitoring and

evaluation of CBDRM projects, and reporting they require as part of financing CBDRM

projects. Donors and their interactions with implementing non-governmental organisations,

and local stakeholders are yet to be fully recognised as part of a CBDRM process. This is

particularly relevant in areas such as the Pacific, where donor agencies and non-governmental

implementing partners play a significant role in carrying out CBDRM policy formation and

local projects. In their report for Tearfund and UNISDR, Venton and La Trobe evaluated

donor agencies from Europe, Canada, America and international agencies, such as the UNDP

176

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-

2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005), 16. 177

Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC). Community-based Disaster Risk Management: a field

practitioner’s guide. (Pathumthani: ADPC, 2004); Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC). 2006. Critical

guidelines: Community-based Disaster Risk Management. (Pathumthani: ADPC, 2007);

John Twigg, Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note. (London: DFID Disaster Risk

Reduction Interagency Coordination Group, 2007); World Bank, Understanding Risk, (Washington, D.C.:

World Bank, 2010).

67

and the World Bank, to assess priorities given to mainstreaming disaster risk programming.178

Funding disaster risk reduction programming in developing countries had been given a higher

level of priority by donors, yet thorough assessments funded projects, and a strategy for

measuring progress were primary concerns.179

While the priorities of donors have been

discussed, the role of donor agencies as a participatory stakeholder in CBDRM was not part of

Venton and La Trobe’s evaluation.

While the HFA is not underpinned by a rights based approach to disaster risk management,

participation of local stakeholders represents an analogous implementing measure. Agency is

central to both a human rights-based approach to external action, and a bottom-up approach to

disaster risk management methodology. Within the HFA, local stakeholders are not expanded

on to indicate which groups are involved in the process of DRM. Customarily, participation

from local stakeholders surround local NGOs, civil society representatives and the private

sector, yet the role of these stakeholders in creating a multi-stakeholder approach is often not

determined. Other actors, such as the Church, often go under-valued in CBDRM, despite the

capacity of faith-based organisations for information dissemination, and greater knowledge of

local hazards, vulnerabilities, and traditional mitigation strategies.

The principles of the human security model coincide with the HFA objectives in the

importance of regional interaction, local ownership of processes, and multi-stakeholder

methodologies in managing threats. The fact there is alignment between human security

principles and the HFA priorities is positive in the holding of international, regional, and

national obligations of duty-bearers to protect against vulnerability and ensure rights are

upheld, whilst HFA must remain contextual to cultural and national risks and vulnerabilities.

A human rights-based implementation of HFA objectives, where cultural, ethnic and societal

factors are emphasised as foundational themes of human security, can assist in a community-

based approach.

`

178


institutional donors, (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003). 179

Ibid, 26.

68

Figure 2.8 The disaster cycle and the HFA priorities.

Alongside the overlap of the priorities with the phases of the disaster cycle, the priorities were

considered by some as too broad. For example, Priority Four, where such an all-embracing

view of reducing underlying risk factors:

“It was very symptomatic that reducing the underlying risks was

dumped into the fourth of the key areas of action, that was a catch-

all of all sorts of awkward issues that people didn’t want to deal

with... how do you move on from that, I don’t know.” 180

In turn, this can marginalise the risks of certain groups, and thus they remain vulnerable, as is

the case with children. This is not assisted by the fact the HFA has little recognition of cross-

cutting issues and social elements of disasters, when discussing child protection.

REGIONAL DRR

PRACTITIONER

[HFA 2015] has to be balanced, but it has to be child-focused as well. There are

different schools of thought...but I think that the child-centred approach runs the

risk of focussing too much attention on the child, at the expense of not focussing

180

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 11/09/2012.

69

also on the caretaker. There’s no resilience for that for children...so I think it has to

be a balanced approach.181

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

Post-Hyogo there will be a pillar related to children which looks at protection /

education / nutrition / medication... it will include the participation of children, and

risk assessments. So it will be more structured with an increased child focus.182

IN-COUNTRY DRR

PRACTITIONER

I think it’s ok ...I guess it needs to be complemented with international standards on

particular things.183

IN-COUNTRY

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

It’s a good framework but you just need to ensure that any development

programming is still implementing within the existing social structures, and the

emphasis on behaviour change, who the people are that we target. We need to

support development programming that allows you to support dialogue and change

at the community level.184

Figure 2.9 Views on addressing social risks and the vulnerability of children in the HFA

This leads to the matter of whether to integrate child protection into holistic DRR

programming, or specialise DRR programming on the protection of children to acknowledge

all risks to children and avoid marginalisation. As the first participant recognises, a

comprehensive view of children and DRR then assists in addressing the roles of other actors

in the community, such as the role of parents and teachers in ensuring child protection. The

concern of mainstreaming the protection of children vertically across all levels of governance,

and horizontally throughout the various aspects of DRR, is a potentially marginalisation of

the risks to children. As with the focus on the response and recovery phase, there can be a

disregard for slow onset or social risks, such as the psychological repercussions of disasters,

or potential abuse and exploitation.185

Alternatively, the second participant believes children

should be a focal point for the 2015 post-Hyogo Framework Agreement, with specific

attention to the needs and risks associated to disasters that children face. In addition, the roles

they play in child-centric DRR such as participation in the design of DRR programming and

risk assessments. Does designating child protection to specific DRR activities in fact

181


Interview excerpt, UNICEF, 28/08/2012 183

Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012. 184

Interview excerpt, Save the Children, 18/10/2012. 185


Resilience - an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008): 1-29.

70

represent a restricted view of children and their role in implementing effective DRR, as they

are not assimilated into DRR, as a pivotal societal issue?

Perhaps, as the latter opinions suggest, there needs to be a stronger focus on international

standards, in this case alignment of state policy and practice with the UNCRC, to empower

and protect children, or a stronger promotion of dialogue through existent social structures.

As such, states can recognise the social vulnerabilities of factions of society, as promoted by

the human security model. By strengthening governance structures to address societal risks

would then ensure a comprehensive view of risk to mirror the current focus on technical risks

– infrastructural or physical risks faced by a community. Yet a holistic view of DRR as a

useful tool to assist in disaster management is often discounted. The concern being that if

inclusive of all technical and social risks, DRR can be too broad, and thus potentially viewed

as unachievable:

“You’ve got to understand the complexities, well, too bad, if

there were a simple way to do this, if there were a simple way

to do this, it would have been done already. You know,

someone would’ve found the holy grail of building resilience,

you know, that one activity that will save us all! But it

doesn’t exist, we live in a complex world.”186

Those undertaking DRR programming believe donors are looking to NGOs and practitioners

to provide an undemanding solution to ensure holistic resilience to disasters, which is cost-

effective and achievable in the short-term. Such strategies are ineffective in reducing the risks

of communities.

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

...Agencies187

now they’re pushing, pushing NGOs, who are looking at resilience, you

know, ‘but what’s that hard measure we can put in place, what’s that hard thing.’

Resilience is not a thing, it’s a strategy. It always has been and always will be. And I

186


In this instance, the interview participant is referring to donors, or institutions which fund NGOs to undertake

DRR programming.

71

think that it’s really frustrating that people say either 1) it’s too complicated or 2) they

want to go too simple. They can’t find that middle level professional ground to do

resilience properly. 188

EUROPEAN DRR

PRACTITIONER

“I think a lot of it is re-branding in the belief that in some way you can find a magic

bullet, a new paradigm that is going to unlock all the doors, and that’s where the

problem is. Most people actually get most of this at an everyday level. The problem is

the institutions and structures they have to work with, and most of the time they don’t

change. Just changing your policy statement or commissioning an interesting piece of

research, holding some workshops, attaching a new word to everything is not going to

make the difference in the end.”189

Figure 2.10 Partner perspectives of donor facilitation of sustainable DRR programming

Tierney and Oliver-Smith describe a disregard for regional and local actors will result in a

breakdown of communication between national and local actors during the disaster recovery

phase.190

These groups can also play vital roles throughout other phases of the disaster cycle,

not only in the recovery and reconstruction phases, but also in the mitigation and preparedness

phases, such as through DRR programming. However, Cannon cites the need for a more

bottom-up approach:

‘There is a growing realisation that many top-down

approaches to disaster management fail to address the

specific local needs of the vulnerable communities, as it

does not take into account the potential of local resources

and capacities. The community being the first to confront

and respond immediately in the exigency of any

emergency, there is a need to build up the capacities of the

communities, enhance the skills and traditional coping

188



Kathleen Tierney and Anthony Oliver Smith, “Social Dimensions of Disaster Recovery,” International

Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 30, no. 2 (2012): 129.

72

mechanisms for minimizing losses resulting from

disasters.’191

This statement acknowledges a community’s abilities in disaster management, but continues

with a potentially imposing attitude based on prioritising external assistance over local

processes. Governance does not solely imply the actions of state administrations. Instead, a

multi-stakeholder approach to policy formation and implementation is also important in

effective governance, where the private sector, civil society organisations, and international

organisations enhance governance structures to ensure processes do not increase

vulnerabilities of individuals or groups.192

Governance also exists through local level disaster processes, to complement top-level

decision-making and public-private interactions. ‘Community-based’ implies responsibilities

towards all aspects of disaster risk management to cover the disaster cycle, whether through

policy formation, implementation, and the consequences.193

Accountable community-level

disaster policies and procedures require effective participatory governance to highlight the

vulnerabilities and capabilities of all groups within the community.194

Capacity building is

integral to the empowerment of local actors, to increase the effectiveness of disaster risk

management. Involvement of vulnerable groups in legislative processes results in the voicing

of the actual risks and concerns of those communities who must deal with the aftermath a

disaster.195

Rather than foreign powers coercing or regulating those at risk in humanitarian or

development policies, it is more effective to empower them to construct accountable,

community-based solutions to crises.196

Cain views the provision of social protection schemes

191

Government of India (2003), as cited in Terry Cannon, Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards:

Communities and Resilience [Research Paper No. 2008/34], (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008), 11. 192

Terry Cannon, Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Communities and Resilience [Research

Paper No. 2008/34], (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008), 9. 193

Zenaida Delica-Willison and JC Gaillard, “Community Action and Disaster,” in The Routledge Handbook of

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. Ben Wisner et al., (New York; London: Routledge, 2012), 715. 194

Lingkar Association, Working with community: good practices community based disaster risk reduction,

(Yogyakarta: Lingkar Association, 2012), 19. 195

Madoka Futamura et al., ‘Natural Disasters and Human Security,’ http://unu.edu/articles/peace-security-

human-rights/natural-disasters-and-human-security, Accessed: 5 May, 2011. 196

Kaldor, Mary, M Martin, and S Selchow, “Human Security: a new strategic narrative for Europe,”

International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007):285.

http://unu.edu/articles/peace-security-human-rights/natural-disasters-and-human-security


73

as an enabling mechanism for a ‘process of empowerment,’ where households or individuals

are in charge of the decision-making in investing their future, and as a result ‘contribute to 'the

development of human capital,’ and can lead to a reduction in poverty.197

Delica-Willison and

Gaillard state risk reduction programmes at a community level ensure an individual or group’s

participation and empowerment,198

as is their right.

While the HFA is not underpinned by a rights based approach to disaster risk management,

participation of local stakeholders represents an analogous implementing measure. Agency is

central to both a human rights-based approach to external action, and a bottom-up approach to

disaster risk management methodology. Within the HFA, local stakeholders are not expanded

on to indicate which groups are involved in the process of DRM. Customarily, participation

from local stakeholders surround local NGOs, civil society representatives and the private

sector, yet the role of these stakeholders in creating a multi-stakeholder approach is often not

determined. There is a need to recognise local community groups as not only vulnerable, but

as social capital. Societal systems, such as faith-based or indigenous networks, often go under-

valued in risk management for information dissemination, and greater knowledge of local

hazards, vulnerabilities, and traditional mitigation strategies. As for demographics whom are

particularly vulnerable to disasters, such as women, those with disabilities, elderly, racial and

ethnic minorities, and children, Phillips recognises such groups can act as social capital

through the provision of additional resources, knowledge exchange, affiliations and networks,

and organisational structures, which meet their needs during the disaster cycle.199

Clearly, the

idea of local ownership is not only about fulfilling the basic requirements and recognising

local vulnerabilities, but dialogue with community groups can maximise the efficiency200

in

disaster management and can complement institutional disaster management structures.

Within the HFA, cultural diversity and gender (which appears to also encompass

vulnerabilities surrounding age, and other such groups with specific needs surrounding

197

Emma Cain, Social Protection and Vulnerability, Risk and Exclusion across the life-cycle, (London: OECD,

2009), 133. 198

Zenaida Delica-Willison and JC Gaillard, “Community Action and Disaster,” in The Routledge Handbook of

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. Ben Wisner et al., (New York; London: Routledge, 2012), 711. 199

Phillips (2009, 39), as cited in Frances L. Edwards, “All Hazards, Whole Community”, in Disaster

Resiliency: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Naim Kapucu et al. (New York; London: Routledge, 2013), 23. 200

Mary Kaldor, Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention, (Oxford: Wiley, 2013), 195.

74

disasters) are outlined as cross-cutting issues to be integrated within a community-based

approach to disaster risk management. The HFA does not provide implementation strategies

for policy formation around such areas, and as a result vulnerable groups such as women,

children, the elderly or those with disabilities, and other cultural aspects remain under-

represented in the HFA priorities. For the HFA to be an effective global and national

document in reducing risks, it must be culturally relevant. It also must draw on the cultural

societal aspects as social capital for locally owned community-based DRR to be successful. In

the report ‘Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community,’ Twigg expanded on the five

thematic areas to provide policy makers and practitioners with a guide to implementing a

bottom-up approach to disaster management.201

While not based on a human rights

methodology, Twigg’s report acknowledges that cross-cutting issues are an underlying

component of disaster risk management, to be integrated at every stage, rather than at a

specific point of the process.202

This has, however, not been the case for the majority of DRR

policy or project formation, where vulnerable groups and their rights are still yet to be

recognised.

The focus on infrastructural and economic reform in mitigation measures as part of disaster

risk management has rendered traditional DRR measures inferior to technological and

scientific approaches.203

Califano stresses the importance of direct involvement from

indigenous groups in risk management, as their unparalleled understanding of the geographic

and social context, can best identify and manage local needs and present local risk

management techniques for security.204

A community’s resiliency is confirmed by the

inclusion of both traditional and modern approaches to disaster risk, where traditional

approaches allow for intergenerational knowledge exchange amongst community members of

understanding of hazards, risk, and coping mechanisms. Cain clarifies if governance centres

201

John Twigg, Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community. London: Aon Benfield Hazard Centre, 2009. 202

John Twigg, Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community, London: Aon Benfield Hazard Centre, 2009,

50. 203

Gregory Button and Anthony Oliver-Smith, “Disaster, Displacement and Employment,” in Capitalizing on

Catastrophe: Neoliberal strategies in disaster reconstruction, eds. Nandini Gunewardena and Mark Schuller,

(Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2008), 145. 204

Joseph J. Califano, “Justice, Security and Genuine Peace, in Global Community, eds. Randall E. Osborne and

Paul Kriese, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 285.

75

on national supportive measures, rather than local measures in disaster management,

traditional management processes are undermined.205

Culture can also affect the educational aspect of DRR where the right to education differs

amongst various cultures and societal settings. In the developing world, governments may

struggle with the provision of education and the security of children through welfare policies,

which the developed world sees as the norm.206

While they may endeavour to adhere to

international standards on education as a child’s right, developing nations also may succumb

to resource constraints and cultural facets such as a parent’s commitment to the education of

their children.207

While there has been a certain amount of research on the EU’s humanitarian aid in other

continents, and the role of non-governmental organisations in general, 208

there has been few

investigation which addresses the EU’s partnerships in humanitarian aid in the Asia Pacific.

This study also assists in filling the gap in research on the activities of civil society

organisations in the provision of DRR, through the collaborations between civil society and

donors.

The role of civil society as a stakeholder in foreign policy processes is central to the human

security model for implementing external action. As Stoddard explains, there has been an

205

Emma Cain, Social Protection and Vulnerability, Risk and Exclusion across the life-cycle (London: OECD,

2009), 137. 206

Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, "Learning Beyond Frontiers," in Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim

Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 314. 207

Ibid, 314. 208

See Christine Mahoney, and Michael J. Beckstrand, “Following the Money: European Union Funding of

Civil Society Organizations,” Journal of Common Market Studies 49, no. 6 (2011), 1339-1361; Gilles Nancy

and Boriana Yontcheva, “Does NGO Aid Go to the Poor? Empirical evidence from Europe,” IMF Working

Paper WP/06/39 (2006): 1-23; Daniela Irrera, “EU and civil society: the case of NGOs in peace missions and

humanitarian intervention,” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 10 , no. 1 (2010): 32-51; Benson et al.,

“NGO Initiatives in Risk Reduction: An Overview,” Disasters 25, no. 3 (2001):199-215; Emmanuel Luna,

“NGO Natural Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness: The Philippine

Case Study,” 2000, http://www.redcross.org.uk/dmp, Accessed: 28 April 2010 ; John Twigg and Diane Steiner,

“Mainstreaming disaster mitigation: challenges to organisation learning in NGOs,” Development in Practice 12,

no. 3&4 (2002): 473-479, Nilufar Matin and Muhammad Taher, “Disaster Mitigation in Bangladesh: Country

Case Study of NGO Activities,” Disasters 25, no. 3 (2001): 227-239. La Trobe, Sarah, Mainstreaming Disaster

Risk Reduction: A Tool for Development Organisations (London: Aon Benfield Hazard Centre, 2005).

http://www.redcross.org.uk/dmp

76

escalation in international and NGOs in the second half of the twentieth century.209

Kaldor

and Gruiters confirm the function of civil society is fundamental to cases of insecurity and

also general development, where its function in recent decades has evolved to take a more

active role, operating as both ‘mediators and facilitators.’210

Axworthy promotes partnerships

with civil society as their expertise and experience in putting legislation into practice can

assist in the national and regional implementation of global rules and regulations,211

as is the

case in disaster risk management. Ryfman sees the actions of NGOs as particularly important

to humanitarian assistance, but state the influences of transnationalism and increased levels of

accountability mean their role is increasingly complex.212

The private sector are increasingly

having to address corporate social responsibility (CSR) within companies, with regards to

upholding human rights, both locally and on a global scale. The EU, along with certain

Member States, are progressively promoting CSR as an essential business practice for when

transnational businesses engage in foreign investments. This growing presence of the private

sector as a partner in EU-third country development, coupled with the EU’s advocacy for the

upholding of human rights as part of its external action strategy, illustrates the relevance of

underpinning risk assessments with the rights of those at risk.

Disaster practitioners and governments are taking direction from the insurance companies in

implementing risk assessments of vulnerable communities prior to implementing

humanitarian projects or assisting with disaster management. Nevertheless, the engagement of

the business community with other actors involved in DRR programming, can assist in the

cost-effective implementation of DRR strategies:

“…You have to use business tools and expertise, you have to

use more scientific tools and expertise in the work you do -

209

Abby Stoddard, Humanitarian NGOs: challenges and trends, (New York University: Centre on International

Cooperation, 2007), 25. 210

Mary Kaldor, Human Security: Reflections on Globalization and Intervention, (Oxford: Wiley, 2013), 195;

Jan Gruiters, “Human security and development: an ambivalent relationship” Security and Human Rights 19, no.

1 (2008): 56. 211

Lloyd Axworthy, ‘Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,’ Global Governance 7, no.

1 (2001): 23. 212

Philippe Rufman, “Non-governmental organizations; an indispensable player of humanitarian aid,”

Inernational review of the Red Cross 89, no 864 (2007): 21-45.

77

you have to be accountable (…) The other thing is if business

can see a business case or got a very strong corporate social

responsibility element, then they will also engage in this.”213

Yet the involvement of the private sector in disaster management remains slightly contentious.

There are concerns that investments into disaster management can lead to concentration in the

profitisation of businesses, foreign and domestic, which are capitalising on the vulnerability of

communities throughout a disaster cycle.214

Moreover, despite the increases of CSR in the

general sense, this often does not translate to the sphere of disaster management, where

influence in risk management continues to surround technical liabilities, rather than social

risks.

As the evidence suggests, reflections from DRR practitioners and NGO representatives are

critical of the impact of global strategies and the institutional approaches of donor agencies in

facilitating DRR programming in countries and communities affected by natural disasters to

reduce levels of vulnerability. Firstly, the broad nature of global strategies such as the HFA

can hinder the reduction of specific risks at local levels. Secondly, institutional barriers of

donor agencies hinder those implementing effective DRR in-country. With regards to the EU,

there is a divergence of opinions from partners as to the effectiveness of institutional

infrastructural and funding mechanisms for DRR but that the lack of internal communication

and overlap of responsibilities between the Directorate Generals which are involved in DRR

does not assist partners in the implementation of DRR activities. As such, these internal issues

hinder the effective implementation of communities at a local level in becoming resilient.

Thirdly, the lack of recognition of social vulnerabilities surrounding disasters, and

mainstreaming into DRR programming in global and institutional strategies denotes those

with specific vulnerabilities, such as children, are not protected. To ensure the security of

individuals, not only conveys a comprehensive view of vulnerability, but also sees individuals

as societal assets. By recognising children and their capabilities as equivalent actors in the

implementation of DRR guarantees not only the self-empowerment of individuals, but in

213

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 12/09/2012 214

See Nandini Gunewardena and Mark Schuller, Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal strategies in disaster

reconstruction, (Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2008).

78

doing so, facilitates sustainable levels resilience of communities. As such, perhaps it is not

solely the internal and global mechanisms, which influence the level of vulnerability, and

consequent degree of community resilience, but the decision-making processes towards the

facilitation of DRR projects undertaken by FPA partners which leads to effective levels of

child protection and empowerment.

2.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This chapter has demonstrated that it is the underlying attitudes of actors towards risk, and

rights-based approaches in the lexis and praxis of policies and implementation strategies

which will ultimately influence whether such approaches are effective or not.

The Human Development Report, as the basis for the human security model, includes specific

rights-based measures for governments to ensure all individuals and groups have basic

capabilities and opportunities, and access to resources guaranteed in policy formation.215

Pelling and Dill, in their review of socio-political regimes and natural disasters, state:

“Understanding of a polity as a broad set of social relations

moves analysis to an assessment of the distribution and

implementation of rights and responsibilities pre-and post-

disaster.”216

Humanitarian aid while practical in lessening the immediate effects of a disaster on a

community, fails to provide long-term measures to ensure risks associated with a disaster do

not reoccur. This is due to the needs-based approach of tending to immediate requirements,

and short-term programming. In the case of the EU, assistance concludes in the humanitarian

sense at 18 months, but potentially continues longer term as development aid. In the context

of conflict as a manmade disaster, but equally applicable to the area of natural disasters, there

is a common lack of resources in the provision of protection and support for human rights in

215

United Nations Development Programme, 1994 Human Development Report, (Geneva: United Nations,

1994), 39. 216


political regimes,” Progress in Human Geography 34, no 21 (2010): 27.

79

governance structures throughout the disaster cycle.217

This lack of protectionism can have

negative implications through the destabilisation of aid streams and consequently increasing

the vulnerability of those at risk, and making it difficult to link immediate and long-term

assistance.218

Polack recognises the need for increased accountability in DRR processes, for

states to realise their national and international obligations.219

Twigg stresses in his early

work, the need for accountability in both the short term assistance and longer-term

development aspects of disaster risk reduction, and explores the ‘right to safety,’ of

individuals and groups, but recognised the need for mechanisms to review the implementation

of this right in disaster risk management policy and processes.220

The model of human security to facilitate foreign policy and practices uses the methods of

multilateral dialogue, regionalism, and interlinking bottom up tactics with comprehensive

policy formation, to apply human rights as an essential element within external action. It

involves local civil society actors in order to promote local ownership of processes, such as

DRR programming. Often states have recognised the importance of such tactics, and indeed,

employ such means in their foreign policy relations, but without the recognition of applying a

rights-based framework to such actions. As part of organisational and institutional

structures, DRR involves varied instruments at an international, national, sub-national, local

and community level from public, private and societal domains of action. Given the

complexity of goals, strategies, mechanisms, organizations and institutions involved in DRM,

it must be recognised that the implementation of ‘disaster risk governance,’ refers to a process

that must take into account (and foster movement in) differentiated action domains, at

differentiated scales, and with reference to differentiated social actors, whether individuals or

collectives.

This chapter has outlined the applications of the model of human security in a global DRR

lexical and practical context. In addition, the EU’s implementation structures have been

217

John Degnbol-Martinussen and Paul Engberg-Pedersen, Aid: Understanding international development

cooperation (Borgergade: Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, 2005), 207. 218

Ibid., 207. 219

Polack, Emily, et al., Accountability for disaster risk reduction: lessons from the Philippines, (Sussex:

Institute of Development Studies, 2010). 220

J Twigg et al., Guidance notes on participation and accountability, (London: University College of London,

2001).

80

outlined to review how human rights are able to be upheld, and vulnerability reduced. As the

core facets of the human security model, Chapter III will re-conceptualise the human security

model to look at these facets in greater theoretical detail by drawing on key literature from

human rights and social vulnerability approaches, to reducing disaster risk and protecting

children.

81

CHAPTER III

RE-CONCEPTUALISING

THE HUMAN SECURITY MODEL

______________________________________

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Following Chapter I and II, which outlined the methodological objectives and context of the

thesis, Chapter III outlines discourse surrounding the model of human security. The literature

highlighted in this chapter introduces the key concepts for this research to support the data

analysis in upcoming chapters. Firstly, this chapter looks to the use of lexis-praxis to explore

human DRR donorship using the human security model. The outline of a rights-based

approach explores child rights applicable to DRR, and child protection in particular. An

investigation of various aspects of vulnerability and risk presents social vulnerability as an

alternate approach to disaster research in place of the dominant environmental and technical

vulnerability discourse, to address the social risks surrounding a natural disaster, and risks to

children. The concluding section of this chapter assesses how the theoretical and conceptual

facets of this thesis intertwine to create a logical and comprehensive basis to analyse the

empirical aspects of this thesis.

The human security model

The human security model, with a shift of prioritisation from state-centric security to that of

citizens, embodies the protection and vulnerabilities of citizens and their rights, to result in

effective policy implementation. Recognition of the advantages of a human security-framed

foreign policy is growing by states and international organisations. This is assisted by the

‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine instigated in 2005, where states agreed to provide

assistance where human rights abuses of individuals and groups required the engagement of

82

the international community.221

The human security model suggests a rights-based approach

and the use of multilateral and regional channels enhances cooperation between states, while

ensuring the protection of those at risk, and the self-empowerment to act.

There is much debate over the definition of human security. The UN Human Development

Report 1994, as the pillar of the human security doctrine, defines human security as “not a

concern with weapons - it is a concern with human life and dignity.” 222

More specifically, “it

also means protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions in the pattern of our daily lives-

whether in our homes, in our jobs, in our communities or in our environment.”223

Some

believe the model should be narrow to solely represent insecurities surrounding conflict

scenarios,224

whereas others maintain human security can be broad in scope to include other

cases of insecurity, such as health, technological, or environmental insecurities. Existing

literature examining human security as a foundation for EU foreign policy concentrates on the

EU’s approach to conflict management, as best exemplified in Kaldor’s work on human

security,225

but there has been little consideration of applying human security to the EU’s

strategies in a natural disaster setting. In this sense, human security can also refer to reducing

vulnerabilities around natural disasters, whether slow or fast onset:

“The loss of human security can be a slow, silent process- or

an abrupt, loud emergency. It can be human-made-due to

wrong policy choices. It can stem from the forces of nature.

Or, it can be a combination of both - as is often the case when

221

2005 World Summit Outcome, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005. 222

United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report, (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1994), 22. 223


Press, 1994), 23. 224

See Human Security Centre. Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century, (New York:

Oxford University Press, 2005), viii; L Axworthy, “Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People

First,” Global Goverance 7 (2001):19; Roland Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’

International Security 26, no. 2, (2001): 87-102; S Ogata and J Cels, “Human Security – Protecting and

Empowering the People,” in Global Governance 9 (2003):273-282. 225

See Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor, A Human Security doctrine for Europe: Project, Principles and

Practicalities, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2006); Mary Kaldor, M Martin, and S Selchow, “Human

Security: a new strategic narrative for Europe,” International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 273-288; Mary Kaldor,

Human Security: Reflections on Globalisation and Intervention, (Oxford: Wiley, 2013).

83

environmental degradation leads to a natural disaster,

followed by human tragedy.”226

There is a direct linkage between human security and human rights. There is much debate

over the role of human rights in humanitarian aid.227

As emphasised by Dunne and Wheeler,

“if security is defined as protection from harm, then it is clear that the infringement of

fundamental rights signifies the presence of insecurity.”228

There has been little discussion of

the inclusion of human rights within DRR policy and subsequent programming. Certain

scholars recognise human rights methodologies in disaster research and practice,229

and only

regarding donorship responses through humanitarian assistance,230

not long-term disaster

assistance. As such, this research assists in broadening the scope of human security by

applying a human rights-based approach to the field of disaster risk management.

In consideration of the European perspective on human security, the 2004 Barcelona report,

endorsed by the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy at the time,

Javier Solana, promotes human security and the promotion of individual and community

security as a model for EU external action.231

While emphasising human rights as the core

function of human security, the narrow definition of human security was limited to

humanitarian interventions rather than natural disasters. In addition, as Martin and Owen

226


Press, 1994), 39. 227

See Anne Oxford, Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the use of force in International Law,

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); David P. Forsythe, “Human Rights and Humanitarian

Operations: Theoretical Observations,” in The politics of international humanitarian aid operations, eds. Eric A

Belgrad and Nitza Nachmias, (Connecticut; London: Praeger, 1997). 228

Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, “‘We the peoples’: Contending discourses of security in human rights

theory and practice,” in Critical perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in

International Relations, eds. D Chandler and N Hynek, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2011), 21. 229

See the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Human Rights and Natural Disasters,

(Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute, 2008); Bryan S Turner, Vulnerability and Human Rights, (Pennsylvania

University Press: University Park: 2006); Bryan S Turner and Habibul H Khondker, Globalisation East and

West, (London: SAGE Publications, 2010), 160. 230

Thomas G. Weiss, “Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action 13, no. 1 (1999): 1-22; Joanna Harrington,

“R2P and Natural Disasters,” The Routledge handbook of the responsibility to protect, eds. W. Andy Knight and

Frazer Egerton, (New York: Routledge, 2012), 141-151. 231

Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities, “A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: The Barcelona

Report of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities,” 2004,

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/40209/1/A_human_security_doctrine_for_Europe%28author%29.pdf, Accessed: 17

September 2013.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/40209/1/A_human_security_doctrine_for_Europe%28author%29.pdf

84

depict, the report represented a conceptual, rather than practical outline of applying the human

security model to EU foreign policy.232

The analytical chapters of this thesis, namely chapters

IV, V, and VI demonstrate practical measures for the EU to uphold the rights of those at risk,

through its policies and actions, based around the human security model.

In contrast, the Council of Europe illustrates the notion of human security also as a shift from

state to individual security, emphasising the role of the international community to protect and

provide for those in need at a time of humanitarian crisis.233

It employs a rights-based

approach to human security, particularly to ensure the primary rights of ‘freedom from want,’

and ‘freedom from fear,’ but criticises broad definitions to include other forms of insecurity

other than conflict scenarios.234

Yet definitions based solely around warfare remain static, as

environmental insecurities also require action from duty bearers within the international

community to uphold the two core human rights the Council of Europe indicates above.

The human security model shifts from a state-centric view of insecurities, with protectionism

of the individual, or collective, as the main priority of policy formation. Guan’s view of the

model is a ‘contradiction from, and challenge to, the more conventional forms of security,’

where the prioritisation of national concerns has on occasion brought with it threats to

individuals, and their right to life.235

Axworthy considers the role of the nation-state as, at

times, incapable of providing protection when necessary due to the increasing influence of

globalisation, and internal governance structures, threatening the wellbeing and rights of those

it is trying to protect, thus necessitating a broader, human-centric approach to security.236

Variations exist of how inclusive the term human security should be, and the policy areas it

should apply to. Some recognise all threats to physical and psychological wellbeing, while

encompassing areas of environment, health, technology as threats to human security,237

232

Mary Martin, and Taylor Owen, “The second generation of human security: lessons from the UN and EU

experience” International Affairs 86, no. 1, (2010): 217. 233

Council of Europe, “Human Security,” 2009, http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/5_10.pdf, Accessed: 17

September, 2013. 234

Council of Europe, “Human Security,” 2009, http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/5_10.pdf, Accessed: 17

September, 2013. 235

Benny Teh Cheng Guan, Human Security, (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012), 3, 5. 236


1 (2001): 19. 237

Roland Paris, ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security 26, no. 2 (2001): 87-102.

http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/5_10.pdf


85

including McRae whom believes that the human security model could be expanded to

represent additional “strands that form the web of globalization,” such as cultural, economic,

environmental and digital insecurities.238

Some believe all-inclusive definitions of human

security undermine the validity of the concept, by making it too elusive for policies and

consequent field operations.239

Krause argues if the concept of security encompasses a

comprehensive, human-centric approach, it must recognise the national administration as the

primary actor in providing protection.240

While Booth believes national and individual

security does not need to be mutually exclusive, and can in fact complement each other.241

In

comparison, Soysal shifts the importance from the state and the notion of citizenship by

stressing the international traction of human security as protection of “entitlements legitimised

on the basis of ‘personhood,’ with “transnational discourses and structures celebrating human

rights as a world-level organizing principle.”242

By regarding all individuals as global citizens,

the human security model consequently assists in reinforcing protection measures and

reducing vulnerability surrounding humanitarian crises.

To bypass areas that are not the focus of this research, this thesis seeks to remain focussed on

human security in the realm of EU foreign policy, particularly through a rights-based

approach to disaster risk reduction programming. As Goodale suggests, it is difficult for

transnational donors to translate normative values, such as human rights, from policy intents

to practice, and as such, ensuing processes undertaken by such institutions to ensure human

rights are recognised can be disordered. In a broader context, this disorder can impact on the

role of human rights in donorship.243

Donor positions on human rights as a normative value

are indicated in policies, but not necessarily translated in the processes they have, or actions

they undertake as part of foreign policy initiatives. Rights need to be embedded in these

238

Rob McRae, Human Security and the new diplomacy, (Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001),

257. 239

Georg Frerks, ‘Human security as a discourse and counter-discourse,’ Security and Human Rights no. 1

(2008): 8-14; Berma Klein Goldewijk, ‘Why human? The interlinkages between security, rights and

development,’ Security and Human Rights no. 1 (2008): 24-36. 240

Keith Krause, “Facing the challenge of small arms,” in The United Nations and Global Security, eds. Richard

M Price and Mark W Zacher, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 22. 241

Ken Booth, “Security and emancipation,” Review of International Studies 17, (1992): 313-26. 242

Soysal, (1993), 3, as cited in Jef Huysmans, The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU,

(Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2006), 28. 243

Mark Goodale, “Locating rights, envisioning law between the global and the local,” in eds. M Goodale and S

E Merry, The Practice of Human Rights, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 32.

86

processes and actions, by way of a rights-based approach. As exemplified by the EU as an

international actor, the representation of human rights in overarching policies, need to be

upheld not only because of its responsibilities under international obligations to protect those

at risk, but as an underlying objective in its own external action policies. This study takes the

classification of human security as a broad, humanistic concept, to include donorship

surrounding natural disasters as a form of insecurity and a situation during which international

and domestic actors influence local social structures and procedures during the disaster cycle.

Pelling and Dill point to the significant of reviewing DRR practices through the lens of human

security, with their example of the influence of international organisations engaged in DRR

practices in social and political processes and institutions during the reconstruction phase of

the disaster cycle.244

The lens of human security conveys standards that envelope “both means and ends” for policy

implementation,245

through a lexis-praxis methodology. Lexis ensures policies focus on the

human rights and social vulnerability of individuals, rather than state interests. Praxis ensures

partnerships between various actors in implementation channels are maximised to uphold the

human rights of individuals and groups. This assists in translating rights as a core, underlying

principle of foreign policy into practice at a global and local level. Human security, through a

lexis-praxis methodology, models a human rights-based approach to foreign policy

implementation by emphasising a holistic approach to human rights, and a holistic approach

towards vulnerability, where social, cultural and ethnic elements play important roles in

disaster management. Tierney and Oliver-Smith highlight how analysis of policy and its

implementation can serve to emphasise the application and projection of grounding theories,

yet the success of policy and subsequent implementation relies on a comprehensive view of

human behaviour, which includes social and cultural aspects.246

Vulnerability is reduced, and

protectionism is realised through multilateral praxis channels of regional dialogue, effective

governance, and local ownership of processes and policy implementation. Kaldor supports

244


political regimes,” Progress in Human Geography 34, no 21 (2010): 35. 245


International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 273-288. 246


Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 30, no. 2, (2012), 141.

87

these implementation channels of the human security model as a pertinent approach to

analysis of foreign policy lexis and praxis,247

particularly with regards to the influence and

actions of individuals or groups in policy process and implementation.248

This model is then

applied to the foreign policy of the EU and its Member States, as a means of integrating

human rights further into its external action strategies and subsequent implementation, in

order to comprehend the current European management of disaster risk, and the future of the

EU’s DRR strategy.

The employ of a lexis-praxis methodology has previously concentrated on chosen lexis in

policy formation, with only conceptual considerations of praxis.249

Gómez recognises the

‘unresolved disconnection between lexis and praxis,’ highlighting the need for ‘reconciliation

if coherence is an objective.’250

Dombrowsky cites praxis as crucial to:

“…human action, but should not be completely defined in

terms of technological success or of the correctness of the

planned or intended action. As long as the unplanned and

unintended effects of human action and the autodynamics

of nature are not added to our concept of reality, we only

believe in metaphysics, but not rational knowledge.”251

Corresponding with Dombrowsky’s view of praxis, this study is distinguished by the

acknowledgement of social vulnerability and social processes, to shift from the technical

approach of disaster management. However, as one DRR practitioner suggests, the mere use

of ‘vulnerability’ as a lexical term in policy formation impacts on the subsequent actions.

247


(2007): 273-288; Jenny Kuper, ‘Minor Matter? The Place of Young People as part of the EU security doctrine.’

International Journal of Children’s Rights 18, (2010): 127-147. 248


emergencies and disasters 13, no. 3 (1995), 251. 249

See Mary Kaldor, M Martin, and S Selchow, “Human Security: a new strategic narrative for Europe,”

International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 273-288; Sabina Alkire, A Conceptual Framework for Human Security,

(Oxford: Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, 2003.) 250

Oscar A. Gómez S., “What is a human security project? The experience of the UN Trust Fund for Human

Security,” Global Change, Peace and Security 24, no. 3 (2012): 402. 251


emergencies and disasters 13, no. 3 (1995), 253.

88

What’s happened is vulnerability has become a mainstream

issue in international policy and the rest of it, it’s been diluted

down (…) as if vulnerability is something you just go out and

give somebody some help. It’s actually not about social

relationships at all, and that’s what’s really clever in how

international politics is played. They’ve got the rhetoric of it

to a tee, but they’ve totally changed the meaning in practice,

so that just doesn’t happen. 252

As such, there must be an analysis of the filtration of rights and social vulnerability lexis in

policy formation to explicit examples of praxis as an actor in humanitarian affairs. Features of

praxis in the international and local partnerships with the EU surround the objective of

community-based DRR to reduce the risks of natural disasters in-country , where local

ownership of decision making in DRR processes highlights local context, culture and

traditional knowledge within disaster risk management, are yet to be fully explored through

the employ of human security.

3.2 A RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO DRR

Philosophical approaches to the theory and defence of human rights can vary from the broad

universal inclusion of all moral rights by citizens of the world, to those more streamlined

doctrines which take on a specific examination of human rights. This thesis takes on the

presumption, as expressed by Turner, which illustrates ‘human rights as universal principles

because human beings share a common ontology that is grounded in a shared vulnerability.’253

However, this research also skews such a view on universalism. It sees human rights as prima

facie universal but recognises that in certain situations, culture may influence the nature of

252


Rhiannon Morgan, and Bryan S. Turner, Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science Perspectives (Abingdon:

Routledge, 2009), 184.

89

rights. Thus, culture can provide a ‘limited source of exceptions.’ as expressed by

Donnelly.254

Recent decades have demonstrated an increasing acknowledgement from the EU of the

importance of protecting human rights. This has been depicted in the recognition of human

rights in EU law, both in independent human rights legislation such as the EU Charter of

Fundamental Rights,255

and furthermore by intrinsically embedding human rights into other

focal areas of EU legislation, in particular through the EU’s Common Foreign and Security

Policy (CFSP). Within the CFSP policies, human rights are prominent, whether in political

dialogue with partner countries or regions, or through the creation of a common position of

Member States towards a particular global issue or conflict scenario.256

Humanitarian aid

must be carried out regardless of the interests of Member States thus must be implemented

within the spheres of the GHD principles, as supported by the EU in its 2007 Consensus on

Humanitarian Aid.257

While there have been some positive actions by the EU and its Member

States to harmonise their humanitarian policies towards the GHD principles, there is still

several grey areas where uniformity is needed. Keukeleire and Macnaughtan consider the

increased presence of human rights in CSDP as a front to cover the lack of harmonisation of

Member States, in agreeing on the fundamental issues when dealing with political situations

in third countries.258

According to the EU, the delivery of its humanitarian aid is irrespective of the domestic

upholding of its citizens’ rights to freedom from fear, and freedom from want.

“One thing is to look at protection and another thing is to

refuse providing aid because the government doesn’t ensure

254

Jack Donnelly, "Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights," Human Rights Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1984):

400-19. 255

European Commission, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2000/C364/01, Brussels:

Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000. 256

S. Keukeleire, and J. MacNaughtan, The Foreign Policy of the European Union (New York, Palgrave

Macmillan:2008), 165. 257

European Community, The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, Brussels: Official Journal 2008/C

25/01, 2008, Section 2. 258

S. Keukeleire, and J. MacNaughtan, The Foreign Policy of the European Union (New York, Palgrave

Macmillan:2008), 166.

90

human rights. This we don’t do, even if the government is an

unlawful dictator like it was in Burma, we still try to go and

help people.”259

The birth of universal human rights, and such conventions as the UN Charter and the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, came in the aftermath of disorder and atrocities

around the world, with the goal of shaping a global human rights doctrine, where all are equal

in their rights.260

Nevertheless, such Charters signify that the defence of human rights must be

maintained during times of both calm and calamity. This applies not only to conflict-based

scenarios, but is also valid surrounding natural disasters. The freedom from violence or

discrimination are indeed pertinent in the former of these two forms of disasters and must be

recognised by states and influencing actors in crises. An individual’s right to life is not

restrictive, and can be extended to include other crises. In 2008, the European Court of Human

Rights (ECHR) maintained:

“The right to life includes positive and procedural obligations

in the context of threats arising from natural phenomena.”261

This is a direct reference to human rights and natural disasters, where procedural obligations

ensure that the implementation of legislation, such as DRR policies, will then have positive

repercussions for communities affected by natural disasters, by guaranteeing their protection

from hazards and thus defending their right to life. The difficulty being when a community,

global or localised, experiences a period of harmony, the recognition of the necessity to

uphold human rights by that group decreases over time. By embedding human rights into

DRR strategies, rights will not be disregarded during a time of crisis, as the policy will

indicate the procedures to be undertaken if a disaster occurs. The application of a human

rights framework thus assists human security to protect individuals and their rights, and to

reduce the social vulnerability of communities at risk during and following a disaster.

259

Interview excerpt, European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Cabinet, 4/11/2010. 260

Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, "Learning Beyond Frontiers," in Human Rights in Global Politics, eds. Tim

Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 314. 261

Jean Connolly Carmalt and Claudine Haenni Dale, “Human rights and disaster,” in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. B Wisner et al., (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 64.

91

There is consensus that human security implies a shift away from national security towards a

more humanistic approach, based on bottom-up methodology, regionalism and

multilateralism. There has been an increasing acknowledgment from scholars and policy

makers alike of the realignment from protecting the states’ rights to the protection of people

and their rights.262

However, the differences in the classification of human security lie in

whether the approach towards humanitarian aid should be based on the rights of individuals or

on their needs. According to Kaldor et al., respect for human rights is central to the human

security model. 263

Conversely, until recent years humanitarian action has been provided to

those faced with a natural disaster through a needs-based approach, focussing on the

provisions of food, water and shelter as the priorities of aid. Flanagan et al. state it is the

individuals or groups whose needs are not acknowledged in the preparedness for disaster

response, who are the most vulnerable.264

Application of needs-based approach can lead to

more than just lack of immediate assistance:

“All too often the human rights of disaster victims are not

sufficiently taken into account. Unequal access to assistance,

discrimination in aid provision, enforced relocation, sexual

and gender-based violence, loss of documentation,

recruitment of children into fighting forces, unsafe or

involuntary return or resettlement (…) are just some of the

problems that are often encountered by those affected by the

consequences of natural disasters.”265

262


1 (2001): 19. 263


(2007): 283. 264

Flanagan et al., “A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management,” Journal of Homeland Security and

Emergency Management 8, no. 1(2011), 3. 265

Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Human Rights and Natural Disasters, Washington, DC.:

Brookings-Bern Publications, 2008, p. 1.

92

However, rights and needs are not mutually exclusive. A rights-based approach, as Huysmans

explains, includes basic human needs, and both represent core aspects of human security.266

Scheffran et al, believe the concept of human security not only implies a shift in prioritisation

to the protection of individuals and their basic needs, but also the empowerment of individuals

to enable resilience at a time of crisis.267

Thus, acknowledgement of specific social groups,

which may be at risk during disasters, including children, and their rights must be taken into

consideration in disaster management policy formation to cover the entire disaster cycle. The

universality of human rights is progressively being recognised through the upholding of

humanitarian principles by states and donors, where the Good Humanitarian Principles of

independence, humanity, neutrality and impartiality underpin many of the humanitarian and

development policies of states and donors.268

Conversely, such policies continue to be based

on the provision of immediate aid, or needs-based approach rather than employing a human

rights-based approach to disaster management.

Sarewitz et al. highlight the fundamental rights of individuals surrounding disasters, the

obligations of the state to ensure a rights-based approach, and the lack of appreciation of such

an approach in disaster risk research,269

but here fundamental rights surround immediate needs

and ‘basic levels of protection,’ with the state as primarily accountable, rather than a multi-

stakeholder approach. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) indicate a lack of

support for a human rights approach to providing immediate assistance and DRR

programming:

“This belief stems from a tendency to understand the human

rights-based approach as limited to civil and political rights,

and to discount the collapse of the (even limited) enjoyment

of social and economic rights which also tends to happen in

crisis situations. Believing that the safeguard of human rights

266

Jef Huysmans, The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU, (Abingdon; New York:

Routledge, 2006), 4. 267

Scheffran et al., Climate Change, Human Security and Violent crises, (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012), 14. 268

Development Initiatives, "Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2011," (Wells: Development Initiatives,

2011), 91. 269

Daniel Sarewitz et al, “Vulnerability and Risk: Some thoughts from a political and policy perspective,” Risk

Analysis 23, no. 4 (2003): 810.

93

should wait until the armed conflict or emergency is over is

counter-productive.”270

Similar reports focussing on human rights in disaster response,271

surround immediate

assistance, rather than a holistic view of human rights throughout the disaster cycle. While

immediate assistance is extremely important to address those needs, often the rights of those

in the countries are disregarded by external aid donors, and the states themselves. There is the

concern that states do not identify crises as an area where human rights need to be upheld,

particularly in relation to natural disasters. Carmalt and Dale express that decisions from

international bodies, such as the UN Human Rights Committee and European Court of Human

Rights assist in informing (and at times penalising) states where they need to be more active in

protecting the right to life, even if hazards are indirect threats.272

Indeed, protection is no longer limited to physical safety273

or physical risks to vulnerable

groups in a time of upheaval. Instead, the concept of protection now extends to incorporate

protection against social vulnerabilities to ensure the defence of cultural, economic and social

rights. Woodiwiss believes sociological perspectives of human rights do not lessen the import

of rights, and instead enhance them as the concept becomes less restrictive.274

Indeed, Turner

considers the upholding of human rights in times of crisis is a “major pre-condition for social

reform.”275

Blaikie et al. note that in order to reduce vulnerability and shift from the

exploitation to protection of people, political change and the development of public policy are

270

UNICEF. "A Human Rights-Based Approach to Programming in Humanitarian Crises: Is UNICEF up to the

Challenge?" edited by Humanitarian Policy Unit/EMOPS, (Geneva; New York: UNICEF, 2003), 3. 271

See also Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, Protection:

an ALNAP guide to humanitarian action. (London: Overseas Development Initiatives, 2005); Brookings-Bern

Project on Internal Displacement, Human Rights and Natural Disasters: Operational Guidelines and Field

Manual on Human Rights Protection in Situations of Natural Disaster. Washington, DC.: Brookings-Bern,

2008.). 272

Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale. "Human Rights and Disaster," in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. B Wisner et al, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 65. 273

Elizabeth G. Ferris, The politics of protection: the limits of humanitarian action (Washington, D.C:

Brookings Institute Press, 2011), 3. 274

A Woodiwiss, “Taking the sociology of human rights seriously,” in Interpreting human rights – social

science perspective, eds. R Morgan and B S Turner (London; New York: Routledge,2009), 113. 275

Bryan S Turner, “A sociology of citizenship and human rights: Does social theory still exist?” in Interpreting

human rights – social science perspective, eds. R Morgan and B S Turner (London; New York:

Routledge,2009), 183.

94

fundamental.276

Previously, such a humanistic approach to disasters was deemed too difficult

to quantify, thus disaster research was dominated by the argument that nature is the root cause

of disasters and addressed through technical means. This traditional view of disasters

dominating disaster research does indicate society has a role in reducing the effects of

disasters by means of the formation of public policy, supported by technical assistance.277

This does not necessarily imply strengthening community structures to avoid the social

repercussions of a disaster, but instead refers to the formulation of public policy surrounding

infrastructural and scientific procedures to be implemented. According to this attitude, a

comprehensive approach to protection inclusive of social vulnerabilities is less effective.

Broad perspectives of protectionism and associated social vulnerabilities of areas such as

health, natural and manmade disasters, weapon disarmament, technology, or environmental

issues such as climate change, may lead to a disregard of human rights abuses by the global

community, as there is no tangible protection mechanism to deploy rapidly to manage such

issues.278

According to Dunne and Wheeler, insecurity is instigated if one is declined the right

to immediate needs which allow them to survive,279

representing a restricted consideration of

security. This narrow view of protection prioritises physical protection and can overlook

important social and economic vulnerabilities. It runs the risk of marginalising vulnerable

groups by discounting certain risks they face, which can lead to long-term protection

concerns. The alternative approach, employed in this study, is inclusive of the associated

276

Blaikie et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s vulnerability and disasters. (London: Routledge, 1994),

233, as cited in M Fordham, “Gendering Vulnerability Analysis: Towards a More Nuanced Approach,” in

Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, development and people, eds. G Bankoff et al, (London: Earthscan, 2007),

174. 277

Kenneth Hewitt, "The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age." in Interpretations of Calamity, ed. Ken

Hewitt, (Winchestor: Allen and Unwin inc., 1983), 6. 278

Eric A. Belgrad, “The Politics of Humanitarian Aid,” in The Politics of international humanitarian aid

operations, eds. Eric A. Belgrad and Nitza Nachmias, (Connecticut; London: Praeger, 1997), ; Gianni

Magazzeni, “The interface between humanitarian action and human rights,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 18, no.3

(1999): 32-39; Humanitarian Policy Unit, A human rights-based approach to programming gin humanitarian

crises: is UNICEF up for the challenge? (EMOPS, 2003); James Darcy, Human Rights and Humanitarian

Action: A review of the issues. (Geneva: Overseas Development Institute, 2004); K Kenny, When needs are

rights: an overview of UN efforts to integrate human rights in humanitarian assistance, Occasional Paper #38,

(Providence: Thomas J Watson Institute for International Studies, 2000); Thomas G Weiss, “Principles, Politics,

and Humanitarian Action,” Ethics and International Affairs 13, no. 1, (2006): 1-22. Rama Mani and Thomas G.

Weiss, “Grounding responsibility and protection in culture and politics,” in Responsibility to Protect: Cultural

Perspectives in the Global South, eds. R Mani and T. G. Weiss, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2011), 4. 279


theory and practice,” in Critical perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in

International Relations, eds. D Chandler and N Hynek, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2011), 21.

95

social vulnerability of communities or individuals, to develop community structures so when

a disaster takes place associated social vulnerabilities are avoided, or are lessened. In addition

to discourse of physical or social protectionism, rights-based approaches include discussions

of the role of empowerment and agency in protectionism. In a report on child agency

surrounding the impacts of disasters, Seballos et al. highlight a comprehensive view of risks

to children surrounding natural disasters and potential measures to engage children in

decision-making.280

The report concludes that international frameworks to reduce child

vulnerability surrounding disasters will only become effective with national DRR policy

formation which recognise child agency,281

thus reinforcing the need for policy makers to

recognise the rights of children as decision makers or their ability to influence policy

decisions which affect them. As a report from the humanitarian policy unit of UNICEF

indicates:

“A human rights based approach to programming places

equal emphasis on outcomes and the process by which

outcomes for children and women are achieved.”282

There has also been acknowledgment from scholars and humanitarian actors of the need to

apply a human rights focus to natural disasters and climate change.283

In her article on

protection in natural disasters, Elizabeth Ferns asserted that all stages of a disaster are about

not only providing relief, but must equally acknowledge the rights of those affected.284

Ferris

cited the 2006 operational guidelines on protecting people in natural disasters, which

highlights the lack of attention paid to human rights when a natural disaster occurs, whilst

280

Fran Seballos et al. "Children and Disasters: Understanding Impact and Enabling Agency," in Children in a

changing climate, eds. Laura Cornish. Brighton: Institute of Development, 2011. 281

Ibid, 49. 282

UNICEF, "A Human Rights-Based Approach to Programming in Humanitarian Crises: Is UNICEF up to the

Challenge?" edited by Humanitarian Policy Unit/EMOPS, (Geneva; New York: UNICEF, 2003), 1. 283

See Elizabeth Ferris, ‘Protection in natural disasters,’ 24 June 2010,

http://www.fmreview.org/disability/FMR35/58.pdf , Accessed: 21 July 2010; Inter-Agency Standing

Committee, Protecting persons affected by natural disasters: IASC operational guidelines on human rights and

natural disasters, (Washington, D.C: Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement, 2006); Gianni

Magazzeni, ‘The interface between humanitarian action and human rights,’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 18, no. 3

(1999), 32-39. John Twigg, Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and

emergency programming, (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004), 209-210. 284

Elizabeth Ferris, ‘Protection in natural disasters,’ 24 June 2010,

http://www.fmreview.org/disability/FMR35/58.pdf , Accessed: 21 July 2010.

http://www.fmreview.org/disability/FMR35/58.pdf


96

explaining that persons affected by a disaster do not lose their basic rights at the onset of a

crisis.285

Despite this, the section of the guidelines dedicated to children focuses primarily on

the needs of children after the onset of a disaster, rather than the rights of children to

protection at all stages of the disaster cycle.

The upholding of human rights extends to the implementation of DRR policies. Carmalt and

Dale explain that the creation of DRR policies indicates a respect for the human right to

protection, in this case against a hazard or risks of disaster, and as a consequence, the employ

of such legislation will then protect the lives of those at risk.286

Whereas, if a state is aware of

a frequent or infrequent form of disaster which it is vulnerable to but does not generate a DRR

policy, it is in breach of its obligation to protect its citizens and their right to life.287

Some

disaster-centric international organisations and non-governmental organisations are presenting

human rights-based methodologies for states and local community-based DRR practitioners to

incorporate human rights into disaster risk management frameworks.288

By embedding human rights into DRR strategies, rights do not remain disregarded during a

time of crisis, as policies recognise protectionism as intrinsic to community structures, and

therefore strengthened to protect children and their rights. In association with respective

conceptual approaches, the rights-based approach corresponds with international legal

perspectives on child protectionism, as indicated by the UNCRC, as well as aligning with

protectionism in hazard-based DRR strategies to reduce risks to natural hazards. Where rights-

based methodologies enrich the legal and scientific perspectives on risk reduction, is the use

of DRR protectionism. The approach bridges the phases of a disaster to avoid further risks,

and thus represents a comprehensive approach to protectionism - both physical and social

285

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Protecting persons affected by natural disasters: IASC operational

guidelines on human rights and natural disasters (Washington, D.C: Brookings-Bern Project on Internal

Displacement, 2006), 8. 286

Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale. ‘Human Rights and Disaster,’ in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. Wisner et al. (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 67. 287

Ibid, 68. 288

See OCHA & UNDP, Integrating human rights in natural disaster management in the Pacific. (Suva:

OCHA, 2007); UNESCO Bangkok, Undertaking a human rights-based approach: A guide for Basic

Programming, (Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2008).

97

protection for short term, immediate needs, as well as long term requirements to reduce

disaster risks.

Framing child rights

Child rights are confirmed under the UNCRC, which was established in 1989 and currently

holds 140 signatories, including all EU Member States.289

This ensures the protection by

states of the four main principles of: non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the

right to life, survival and development and the views of the child, which are set out in set out

in Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12 of the CRC respectively.290

The UNCRC legally binds international

actors into protecting all areas of human rights whether social, economic or political.291

It is

crucial states and international organisations conform to this mandate when addressing child

rights in legislation. Archard states that despite the UNCRC as the international pillar for

child rights, and its delineation of the rights children hold, the primary obstacle for ensuring

child rights are recognised universally in policy formation is the of divergence of opinions on

the status of children, both ethically and politically.292

From a European perspective the

Council of Europe through the European Convention on Human Rights, and partner document

the European Social Charter, holds a holistic approach to protection of both civil and political

human rights, and social and economic human rights.293

While the European Convention on

Human Rights does not include specific indications to child protection, and child rights,294

the

289

United Nations, “Chapter IV Human Rights. Part 11. Convention on the Rights of the Child,”

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en,

Accessed: 9 January 2013. 290

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Fact sheet No. 10 (Rev .1) The Rights of the Child,

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs10.htm , Accessed: 28 July 2009. 291

Unicef, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 26 August 2008, http://www.unicef.org/crc , Accessed: 30

July 2009. 292

David Archand, “Children’s rights,” in Handbook on Human Rights (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New

York: Routledge, 2012), 324-332. 293

Council of Europe, “The European Social Charter,” 2012,

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/AboutCharter_en.asp, Accessed: 17 September

2013. 294

Council of Europe, European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&lang=en

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs10.htm

http://www.unicef.org/crc

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/AboutCharter_en.asp

98

legal status of the child and the social protection of children, particularly from abuse or

exploitation and discrimination, are recognised by the European Social Charter.295

Over the last decade, there have been significant developments in the respect for child rights

within EU policies. With the formation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights came the

first recognition of child rights in EU policies, with Article 24 expressing the right to

protection and a child’s well-being as the focal points.296

The subsequent EU Guidelines on

the Rights of the Child in 2002 established key areas of interest such as the promotion and

protection of child rights, along with Member State coherence in child policies and also

reminds third world countries of their international obligations to protect child rights as

established under the UNCRC.297

Alongside this holistic child rights policy formation, the

internal sphere of civil liberties, justice and home affairs has also shown increases in EU child

rights legislation, where child exploitation and abuse have been addressed through specific

child-centred legislation, primarily through the 2010 proposal for a Directive to combat child

abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.298

This foundational policy

formation has led to the EU progressively highlighting child rights as part of an integrated EU

policy, most recently with the 2011 Communication, “An EU Agenda for the rights of the

child.”299

While the EU can be applauded for certain advances in policy formation to cover

child rights within internal and external action, the 2011 Agenda can be criticised as simply

an overview of current action and as not being future-focussed or inclusive of an

implementation strategy. According to Grugel and Iusmen, the European Commission’s role

in ensuring child rights internally is relatively novel, with positive shifts through increased

engagement with child-centric civil society organisations, but hindered by the internal

complexities of member state harmonisation and policy blockades within the EU

295

Council of Europe, “The European Social Charter,” 2012,

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/AboutCharter_en.asp, Accessed: 17th

September

2013. 296

European Community, “Fundamental Rights of the Child 2000/C 364/01” Official Journal of the European

Communities C 364/1, (2000). 297

European Council, “EU guidelines on the rights of the child,” 14 December 2007,

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16031.07.pdf , Accessed: 25 March 2010. 298

European Commission, “Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

On combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework

Decision 2004/68/JHA [COM(2010)94], (Brussels: European Commission, 2010). 299

European Commission, An EU Agenda for the rights of the child (COM(2011)60), (Brussels: European

Commission, 2011).


http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16031.07.pdf

99

institutions.300

Stalford explores the EU’s role in protecting children and child rights further

by looking at accountability measures, stating the EU can draw on existing internal and

external structures, but the international promotion of child rights by the EU will require

sustainable relationships with its partners.301

As such, there is an overarching external action

policy base for protecting children and child rights, but as yet there is minimal recognition of

child rights in specific foreign policy mechanisms, such as DRR.

Children represent an important part of the concept of human security, as they can be exposed

to a wide range of risks during and after a crisis. Axworthy addresses human security in terms

of protecting citizens rather than state interests, and highlights children as a particular group in

society in need of such protection.302

Kuper shifts similar arguments to an EU framework,

explaining why the EU must highlight young people as part of its human security doctrine.303

While the UNCRC304

does not specifically mention a child’s right to resilience, or the

protection of children and their rights in context of disasters, clauses surround a more political

or legal context, which can be transferable and valid in relation to natural disasters. The

UNCRC ensures the protection of children by states within humanitarianism through of the

four main principles of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life,

survival and development, and the views of the child, or Articles 2,3,6 and 12 respectively.305

Often such rights are disregarded during and immediately after a humanitarian crisis as chaos

ensues and consequently children are overlooked, yet all of these Articles encompass a

child’s right to protection and empowerment, and subsequent reduction of vulnerability and

increased resilience.

300

Jean Grugel and Ingi Iusmen, The European Commission as guardian angel: the challenges of agenda-setting

for children’s rights, Journal of European Public Policy, (2012): 1-18. 301

Helen Stalford, Children and the European Union: Rights, Welfare and Accountability, (Oxford: Hart

Publishing Ltd, 2012). 302


1 (2001): 19-23. 303

Jenny Kuper, ‘A Minor Matter? The Place of Young People as part of the EU security doctrine.’


United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child [Resolution 44/25], 20 November 1989, (Geneva:

United Nations, 1990). 305

Ibid.

100

McCormick views Article 4 and 27 as most important for child protection in crises due to the

emphasis of these particular articles of the state as primary duty-bearers.306

However, the four

Articles aforementioned have been included for this study as the emphasis is also on

international actors as duty-bearers, as reflected through the human security model and the

responsibility of donors to protect those at risk. These four articles encompass a child’s right

to protection and resilience surrounding a disaster. Often such rights are disregarded during

and immediately after a humanitarian crisis as chaos ensues and consequently children are

overlooked. It is crucial states and international organisations conform to this Convention

when addressing child rights in DRR legislation, to ensure their efforts in protecting children

and their rights in DRR policies are consistent and comprehensive.

Article II – The right to non-discrimination

All States must respect the rights of children regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnicity,

social or political background, disability, property, or status. This is reflected in the

universality of rights, and more specifically, in the notion that one’s circumstances or

background have no impact on the protection of those rights.

Article III – The best interests of the child

States must ensure that all actions which are undertaken that concern children, are performed

in the best interests of the child. The State will ensure that the child is protected, and the

persons or institutions involved in providing the protection do so appropriately.

The uncertainty of what constitutes the ‘best interests of the child’ can be difficult to the

application of this right in practice. Commissioner for Human Rights in the Council of

Europe, Thomas Hammarberg, described the need for this Article to be recognised as a

procedural requirement for decision-makers to review all proposed legislation to confirm the

interests of a child, or children, are taken into consideration.307

Ronen believes the judicial

approach to the best interest of the child is often ambiguous and can result in a lack of

306

Christine McCormick, “Monitoring, reporting and addressing child rights and protection violations in ‘non-

listed’ countries,” Disasters 37, no. S1 (2013):122. 307

Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, “The Principle of the Best

Interests of the Child - what it means and what it demands from adults,” [CommDH/Speech(2008)10], 30 May

2008, (Warsaw: Council of Europe, 2008).

101

accountability from duty-bearers to defend this particular right of children.308

In an extensive

report exploring the concept in a national and international context, the UN High

Commissioner for Refugees supported the use of ‘best interests determinants’ and

assessments, based on the context of the crisis, and take into account determining factors such

as family separation, and decision making processes.309

Article VI – The right to life, survival and development

Duty bearers acknowledge the right to life of all children, and where possible, they will ensure

the survival and development of each child. However, as one UN representative indicates,

sometimes the lines between development and the upholding of child rights blur at the state

administration level. In the context of the Pacific:

“In many of our settings, and I think in the Melanesian

setting, children are not direct beneficiaries of any kind of

whatever, they are not thought of first, there are certain things

which governments will think of first. And sometimes, when

they’re looking at the economic progress, they don’t mind

how many children they tramp over in their efforts towards

economic progress. But just to pursue it at whatever cost. And

then you have to remind them, ‘look, you are pursuing

economic progress but look at how many children are

involved in child labour, look at how many children are being

affected by the tourism industry,’ they don’t want to look at it

they say, ‘look at this, look at how much money we are

pursuing here.’”310

Article XII – The right to participation

308

Ya’ir Ronen, “On the Child’s Right to Identity, the Best Interests of the Child and Human Dignity,”

Conference Paper for the Conference on Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies, Hawaii, 2009. 309

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Guidelines on Determining the Best Interests of the Child,

(Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2008). 310

Interview excerpt, UN Agency, 16/10/2012.

102

Each child has the right to form and express his or her own views, and allowed the

opportunity to be heard in any administrative or judicial processes, as is appropriate under

national procedures.

The common disregard for participation of children in disaster policy formation, or

implementation, can be considered as resulting from a focus on parental responsibility, rather

than the state, in providing for a child’s specific needs surrounding a disaster.311

Hart and Bex

confirm however, there is an increasing belief that a person is still able to influence their own,

or someone else’s, life for the better, no matter what their status in society.312

Peek supports

this, stating how certain attributes of children such as their intelligence, imagination, vitality

and access to social networking exemplify the different means through which children can

contribute before, during or after a disaster.313

Many humanitarian organisations have been

involved in increasing child participation by performing focus groups with children in

countries prone to disasters. In one research report, Plan International states:

“By providing the opportunity to be directly involved in

disaster risk reduction activities, young people can develop

skills to be better prepared for potential threats, and

participate in efforts to protect their safety and wellbeing.” 314

Case studies by scholars and humanitarian organisations alike carried out in Asia-Pacific

countries have shown that children are keen to contribute to local DRR activities and are

311


Emergency Management 8, no. 1 (2011), 5; Lori Peek. "Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability,

Developing Capacity, and Promoting Resilience - an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1

(2008): 1-29. 312

Jason Hart and Bex Tyler, ‘Research with Children Living in Situations of Armed Conflict: Concepts, Ethics

and Methods,’ RSC Working Paper Series, 2006, 4. 313

Lori Peek, ‘Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacities, and Promoting

Resilience – An Introduction,’ Children, Youth and Environments Vol.18, no. 1 (2008): 14. 314

Plan International, ‘Children and Young People at the centre of Disaster Risk Reduction”, 2007,

http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrenindrr.pdf , Accessed: 15 December 2010.

http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrenindrr.pdf

103

capable of doing so, while also being aware of potential risks associated with a disaster that

can threaten their survival.315

It may be a change in attitude is required for policy makers to implement a rights-based

approach to DRR. While children have specific needs, they also have specific capabilities in a

disaster context. By indicating a child’s right to resilience (which therefore embraces all the

individual associated rights under the UNCRC applicable to a disaster context), rather than

explicitly citing a child’s right to protection in policy formation, implies not only their

vulnerability but is complemented by embracing the aptitudes of the child to be resilient. The

acknowledgement of the right to resilience will facilitate dialogue surrounding children and

DRR strategies at all levels (international, national and local), through a positive shift in

attitudes toward children in disaster risk management.

This approach not only highlights children as vulnerable, with specific risks and needs in

times of disaster, but also their potential resilience and autonomy in the different stages of the

disaster cycle. Participation in DRR policy formation and programming can assist with a

rights-based approach to community-based disaster risk management, where groups are

empowered at a local level, as promoted by human security.

3.3 RECOGNISING SOCIAL VULNERABILITY IN DRR PROGRAMMING

THROUGH HUMAN SECURITY

Increases in policy formation to reduce the risks of disaster have aligned with a recent

scholarly trend to consider the different types of vulnerability surrounding disasters.

Furthermore, the importance of implementing measures to reduce the potential risks

315

See Emily Polack et al, Accountability for disaster risk reduction: lessons from the Philippines. (Sussex:

Institute of Development Studies, 2010); Tom Mitchell et al., ‘The Roles of Children and Youth in

Communicating Disaster Risk,’ Children, Youth and Environments 18, no.1 (2008): 254-279; Plan International

and World Vision, ‘Children on the Frontline: Children and young people in disaster risk reduction,’ 2009,

http://www.ineesite.org/assets/childernonthefrontline.pdf, Accessed: 15 December 2010; UNICEF, The

Participation of Children and Young People in Emergencies,(Thailand: UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional

Office, 2007).

http://www.ineesite.org/assets/childernonthefrontline.pdf

104

throughout the disaster cycle.316

Given the focus of this research on the social vulnerability of

children, and the lack of recognition of social vulnerabilities in DRR policy implementation,

the concept of social vulnerability has been elaborated on as part of a comprehensive approach

to human security model. But what is vulnerability? What is risk? Through the human security

model, this section discovers the relationship between vulnerability and risk, and how social

vulnerability can be addressed through DRR. The discussion then shifts to focus on child

vulnerability.

Vulnerability is lessened by the available resources in a society,317

to influence the impact of a

hazard on the community at risk. In conjunction with the international classification of

vulnerability in Chapter II, this view of vulnerability can encompass both technical and social

vulnerabilities. As will be discussed further in this chapter, recognition of social aspects of

disasters allows for a comprehensive approach to risks, and thus assists in promoting the

protection and empowerment aspects of human security. As one of the pioneers of social

disaster research, Hewitt’s approach to vulnerability focuses on the capabilities of

administrations, individuals, or groups surrounding a hazard.318

In addition, the conditions that

render people vulnerable when a disaster occurs, and their impact.319

Risk is viewed by Hewitt

as representative of a broader connotation to risk, including all potential linkages to hazards

and causal factors.320

This aligns with the international approach where the magnification or

316

See Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, “Disaster Risk Management Programs for Priority

Countries.” Washington D.C: GFDRR Secretariat, 2009; Douglas Paton, and David Johnston. "Disasters and

Communities: Vulnerability, Resilience and Preparedness." Disaster Prevention and Management 10, no. 4

(2001): 270-277; John Twigg, “Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community,” London: Aon Benfield

Hazard Centre, 2009; John Twigg, "Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and

Emergency Programming." London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004 317


Emergency Management 8, no. 1, (2011): 1-22. 318

The UNISDR defines a Hazard as a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may

cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and

economic disruption, or environmental damage. This study explores natural disasters as one example of a

hazard. UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, ‘UNISDR Terminology for Disaster Risk Reduction


20 May, 2011. 319

Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters. Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997, 21. 320

Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters. Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997, 22.


105

decrease of risk is caused by the hazard, in conjunction with local levels of vulnerability and

available assets. This relationship can be represented as:

Risk = Hazard x (Vulnerability – Resources)

This algorithm is being increasingly recognised amongst disaster researchers.321

Preventative

measures are then put in place through DRR policy and programming. Despite the concept of

vulnerability being inclusive of social aspects, the focus of DRR policy formation and

implementation is often technically focussed, such as investigations of the geophysical,

meteorological, infrastructural, or technological characteristics of a disaster, as featured in the

dominant view of disasters. In 1993, Dynes emphasised the need to understand the social

setting rather than simply focussing on the infrastructural facets of disaster reduction,322

where

examination of disasters is not restricted to the technical approach to disasters.

The common focus on the physical aspects of a disaster is centred in the visibility of

devastation and violence than the potential or causal factors of a disaster, as they are have

more impact and conclusiveness.323

Where previously the dominant view of disasters as a

scientific study of the technical aspects of crises was the primary foundation for disaster

research, a more contemporary view of disasters has evolved in the vulnerability approach, to

include social aspects of disaster management. The vulnerability approach encompasses

sociological views of disasters, as increasingly upheld by social and physical scientists

alike.324

The inclusion of social vulnerabilities in global disaster discourse is reflected in the

area of disaster studies, with the dominant view of disasters being altered to evaluate social

321

See Ben Wisner et al., At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York: Routledge,

2004; Flanagan et al., “A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management,” Journal of Homeland Security

and Emergency Management 8, no. 1 (2011): 1-22. 322

Russell R. Dynes, “Disaster Reduction: The importance of adequate assumptions about social organisation,”

Sociological Spectrum 13, (1993): 175-192. 323

Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters (Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997), 21. 324

See Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters (Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997); Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social vulnerability to disasters, (Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis,

2010); Ben Wisner et al., At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. (New York: Routledge,

2004).

106

outcomes and processes of hazardous events.325

This has become a valid method of analysis

where sociologists are now exploring disasters in the goal of highlighting humanistic risks and

vulnerability faced at a time of crisis, along with the influential and consequential societal

aspects of disasters. Wisner confirms disasters are as much a social, economic and political

issue as a natural one.326

Yoon states discussions of vulnerability surrounding disaster are

inadequate without the recognition of social demographics including age, gender, race and

ethnicity, particularly due to the potentially insufficient access to assistance within the disaster

cycle.327

Accordingly, recognition of social vulnerabilities lead to greater comprehension of

the different impacts of disasters on various community groups.328

Growing identification of the limitations of the dominant view of hazards has led to the

assimilation of the social vulnerability and dominant approach to disaster research.329

This

research affirms an integrated response to disaster vulnerability involves both the physical and

social sciences, an estimation necessary in the goal of reducing risks faced by vulnerable

communities. Table 3.1 below compares these two differing schools of disaster research:

325

See Ben Wisner et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters (New York:

Routledge, 2004); Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social vulnerability to Disasters (Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis,

2010); Susan L. Cutter et al., “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards,” Social Science Quarterly 84, no.

2 (2003): 242-261; Russell R. Dynes, “Disaster Reduction: The importance of adequate assumptions about

social organisation,” Sociological Spectrum 13, (1993): 175-192; Kenneth Hewitt, “The idea of calamity in a

technocratic age,” in Interpretation of calamity: from the viewpoint of human ecology, eds. Kenneth Hewitt,

(Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc, 1983); Maureen Fordham in Mapping vulnerability: disasters development

and people, eds. G Bankoff et al, (London: EarthScan, 2007). 326

Ben Wisner et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters (New York: Routledge,

2004), 4 327

D. K. Yoon, “Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: a comparative study,” Natural Hazards

63, (2012): 824. 328

Morrow, (2008) as cited in D. K. Yoon, “Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: a

comparative study,” Natural Hazards 63, (2012): 824. 329

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters, (Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group), 12.

107

Table 3.1 Comparative assessment of dominant and vulnerability views of disasters.330

As Hewitt endorses:

‘We cannot take for granted the relationship between people

and nature, between knowing subjects and objects or study or

between theory and fact.’331

The 1980s saw a spike in research focussed on sociological and epistemological aspects of

disasters, and a shift away from the dominant view of crises as a technical study. Hewitt

explains while the majority of those undertaking disaster research would not reject the idea

there are economic and social aspects associated with the risks of a crisis, the dominant

argument positions these influences as dependent on the geophysical nature of disasters.332

330

Source: Enarson et al, Social Vulnerability to Disasters, as cited in Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social

Vulnerability to Disasters, (Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis Group), 13. 331

Kenneth Hewitt, Interpretations of Calamity: from the viewpoint of human ecology, (Winchester: Allen &

Unwin Inc, 1983). 332

Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters (Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997), 5.

108

“My own background is research into the physical environment

and geo-hazards. Yet, I have come to believe that social

understanding, and socially just and appropriate action, are the

more crucial issues for the contemporary disaster scene. And

while I would welcome a clearer picture of the social content

of this work (…) , the main problematic for us does seem to be

the social construction of disaster. That concerns the often

covert and taken-for granted way in which social conditions or

‘realities’ shape how we think about and act toward disasters.

(…) It is to examine the relations between discourse, ideology

and practice. 333

Hewitt’s arguments of applying a vulnerability approach to disaster research are relative to the

theoretical foundations of this research on disasters, principally in supporting its central view

of the role of sociological examinations of disaster management. His humanistic approach to

disaster research could be applied to the area of DRR as a significant area influence of

reducing vulnerability throughout the disaster cycle.

The human-centric research as promoted by Hewitt, is supported by the work of Quarantelli,

whose writings around the time of Hewitt also depicted the value of examining social aspects

of the various phases of the disaster cycle.334

Many fellow social scientists follow the

argument that disasters not only require social intervention in terms of risk management, but

confirm causal factors of disasters can also be attributed to humans, rather than nature.335

This

333

Kenneth Hewitt, “The social construction of disaster,” in What is a disaster? Perspectives on the question,

ed. E.L. Quarantelli (New York; London: Routledge, 1998), 76. 334

Quarantelli, E.L. Disaster Related Social Behaviour: Summary of 50 Years of Research Findings. (Newark:

University of Delaware, 1999); Quarantelli, E.L. The Disaster Recovery Process: what we know and do not

know from research. (Newark: University of Delaware, 1999); Quarantelli, E.L. The Sociology of Panic.

(Newark: University of Delaware, 1999). 335

See Ben Wisner et al., At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability and Disasters (2 ed.) (New York:

Routledge, 2004); Brenda D. Phillips, et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters (Boca Raton: CRC Group, 2010);

Bryan S. Turner, Human Rights and Vulnerability. eds. Thomas Cushman, Essays on Human Rights (University

Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006); Bryan S. Turner and Chris Rojek. Society and Culture:

Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity (London: SAGE Publications, 2001); Russell R. Dynes, "Disaster

Reduction: The Importance of Adequate Assumptions about Social Organization," Sociological Spectrum 13

(1993): 175-92.

109

corresponds with the human-centric approach to DRR, where rather than the concentration on

technical, economic, or political factors of disasters, the protection and reduction of

vulnerability must be central to effective DRR programming. In doing so, DRR programming

across the disaster cycle needs to be interdisciplinary involving both physical and social

spheres DRR programming. As one DRR practitioner suggests, “It’s not about different

disciplines diluting what they know, it’s about bringing them together and to understand how

it integrates together.”336

Another DRR practitioner agrees, that interdisciplinary approaches

to DRR which acknowledge physical and social risks will assist in more effective

programming at a local level:

“It’s about taking a problem-based approach and whatever

methodologies are correct for addressing that problem is the

way forward. And if that happens to be using a social science

methodology to understand a hazard better.”337

Paton and Johnston amalgamated the two disciplines of science and sociological research in

their work as they investigate vulnerability in a community context.338

They stated that while

expenditure on disaster preparedness is effective in terms of structural issues, such as

increased attachments of hot water cylinders, or matters of immediate wellbeing, such as food

and water storage, communities remain vulnerable to natural hazards. They do not see public

education as being effective in reducing vulnerability. From the perspective of the human

security model, education assists in empowering individuals and communities, but it is also a

question of engagement to recognise the risks and capabilities. In addition, dialogue with

stakeholders and citizens assists in mitigating against those risks. J.P Stoltman et al., have

given their analysis of mitigation strategies around the globe a regional focus, looking at

South East Asia and the Pacific independently,339

promoting the importance of the education

336

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/9/2012 337


Douglas Paton and David Johnston, "Disasters and Communities: Vulnerability, Resilience and

Preparedness," Disaster Prevention and Management 10, no. 4 (2001): 270-277. 339

J.P. Stoltman et al., International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation and

Consequence (Netherlands: Springer, 2001).

110

sector for efficient natural disaster information dissemination amongst children, but without a

focus on children rights in mitigation strategies.340

Social vulnerability is an active phenomenon due to the existing influences that social aspects

within community structures can have on the impending risks of a disaster. In order to discuss

risks and then generate systems to reduce them, it is first necessary to evaluate concerns in the

existing social climate. In their research, Kreps, Gilbert and Dombrowsky consider social

structures as intertwined with disasters, but to varying degrees. Kreps observes disasters at an

institutional and organisation level, regarding a community’s reaction to a disaster, while

Gilbert considers a disaster as disturbing societal relationships, and the progressive dissolution

of the relationships between local actors and processes.341

Dombrowsky takes this notion

further, referring to the works of Carr,342

addressing disasters in terms of society as he

perceives disasters as not only consequences, but causal factors of disasters where imbalanced

social structures are then put under pressure when natural forces overwhelm the system.343

Dombrovsky through his work on societal structures as causal factors of disasters states:

“There is no distinction between a disaster and ‘its’ effects.

Disaster do not cause effects, the effects are what we call a

disaster.”344

Weak societal structures are potentially incapable of sustaining the onset of a natural or

manmade disaster, and would collapse as a consequence. The associated risks of disasters

when coupled with the destruction of societal supports, can result in communities being

340

Ibid. 341

Claude Gilbert, “Studying disaster: a review of the main conceptual tools,” International Journal of Mass

Emergencies and Disaster 13 (1995): 235, as cited in E L Quarantelli, What is a disaster? (London; New York:

Routledge, 1998,) 129. 342

L T Carr, “Disasters and the Sequence-Pattern Concept of Social Change,” American Journal of Sociology 38

(1932): 207-218. 343

W Dombrowsky, “Again and again: Is a disaster what we call a disaster? Some conceptual notes on

conceptualising the object of disaster sociology,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13,

no 3 (1995): 241-254, as cited in E L Quarantelli, What is a disaster? (London; New York: Routledge, 1998),

129. 344

W Dombrowsky, “Again and again: Is a disaster what we call a disaster? Some conceptual notes on

conceptualising the object of disaster sociology,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 13,

no 3 (1995): 244.

111

unable to prevent, prepared for, or at worst, manage a disaster.345

But are societal structures in

vulnerable communities inherently weak? A state or community can be socially stable, but

still be vulnerable, whether collectively, or as encompassing vulnerable citizens. This intrinsic

level of vulnerability is depicted through the model of human security. A socially democratic

society, where human rights are protected by the state or ratified UN conventions, can still

comprise insecure groups whose vulnerability is amplified during an impending disaster, but

whose rights are not guaranteed in ‘peacetime,’ when risks against a disaster must still be

prevented. As clarified by Dunne and Wheeler, “the citizens of a social democratic society

may have all their human rights protected by the state, but that does not necessarily mean their

community has security.”346

Primary analysis of social disorder during the risk assessment

phase of DRR programming will examine whether a community is cognisant of potential risks

faced by its citizens. Uncovering risks in a preventative, bottom-up methodology can then

assist in enhancing the social supports of a community in general. It is anticipated that

applying this approach can improve the social supports for vulnerable groups in periods of

calm, as opposed to a retrospective strategy post-disaster, which will ultimately focus solely

on reducing risks faced during the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

Consequently, social vulnerability is also a repercussion of not including social aspects to

DRR policies and creating community-based DRR programming, which focuses on reducing

social risks faced by vulnerable groups during and following a disaster. According to Hewitt,

the traditional view sees socio-cultural implications of natural disasters as ‘unforeseen

contingencies’, where the effects on society are considered to be part of the process; that are

not something to be pre-empted or strengthened in anticipation for a disaster.347

In his work

Hewitt describes one policy document, which states although human beings often actively

prepare for unanticipated events, they differ from other species since, in general, humans are

more comfortable managing issues which arise in the present. The report maintains the

345

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social vulnerability to Disasters, (Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 2010), 7. 346


theory and practice,” in Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in

International Relations, ed. D Chandler & N Hynek, (Routledge: Hoboken, 2010), 22. 347

Kenneth Hewitt, “The idea of calamity in a technocratic age,” in Interpretation of calamity: from the

viewpoint of human ecology, eds. Kenneth Hewitt, (Winchester: Allen & Unwin Inc, 1983), 15.

112

benefits of immediate action outweigh those of preventative action.348

This rationale explains

the tendency of states to implement DRR policies post-disaster in a retrospective, rather than

precautionary manner. However as Figure 3.1 depicts, social vulnerability is interlinked with

DRR and disasters, as can be present prior to and following a disaster:

Figure 3.1 Interrelationship between natural disasters, social vulnerability and DRR.

The above figure illustrates influential factors of the social climate, geographic setting,

community structures, and mitigation efforts in relation to the associated risk of disasters and

the influence on the creation of DRR policies. Levels of mitigation signify where risk has

already been addressed through disaster management, whether through the creation of policy

formation such as DRR policies, or DRR programming.

While the geographic environment may predominantly apply to states facing natural disasters,

it is also relevant in the cases of manmade disasters. Risks faced by vulnerable groups

confronting conflict can be intensified if a country is also prone to the effects of frequent or

infrequent natural disasters. Conflict scenarios can equally impact a state’s ability to

implement DRR policies or DRR programming in order to reduce the effects of natural

disasters. At a community level, however, Quarantelli states natural and manmade disasters

348

Ibid, 15.

113

are dissimilar to conflict scenarios as the former are deemed ‘consensus type occasions’

affecting community structures and community behaviour, whereas decisions in warfare

intentionally increase the disorder.349

Wisner’s supports this perception as it illustrates that the

occurrence of conflict scenarios and natural disasters are interlinked with the integration of

disaster management by states.350

This premise is also relevant in relation to the

implementation of DRR strategies by external actors who are involved in providing assistance

to states as part of their foreign policy.

The social climate and existing community structures are fundamental influences in the

correlation between current and potential social risks surrounding a disaster, the disaster itself,

and recognising vulnerabilities in DRR policy formation. The existing community structures

and social climate of vulnerable communities indicate the nature of risks, and level of risk

faced. These risks would then be heightened during a disaster, generating a need to strengthen

social structures prior to a disaster and introduce measures to reduce associated risks for the

various vulnerable groups, including children, if a disaster were to occur.

This shift in mind-set is increasing amongst the disaster community. However, recognition of

social risks is yet to be mainstreamed amongst policy makers and practitioners, both in the

international and domestic context. Firstly, they remain restrictive to primarily addressing

physical risks, where social risks are all too often considered as too difficult to quantify. This

is chiefly the case in the phases of assessment, and monitoring and evaluation in disaster

management. Secondly, while immediate risks may be captured, slow onset risks can be

regarded as a developmental issue, and consequently ignored in other phases of disaster risk

management, such as through DRR programming. This is the case for many of social groups

which face slow onset risks, including children.

The risks associated with children during a disaster are beginning to appear in literature and

there have been increases the documentation of child vulnerability in a disaster. Research

349

Quarantelli, E.L, Disaster Related Social Behaviour: Summary of 50 Years of Research Findings (Newark:

University of Delaware, 1999), 3. 350

Ben Wisner, “Violent conflict, natural hazards and disaster,” in Routledge Handbook on hazards and disaster

risk reduction, eds. Wisner et al., (Abingdon; Routledge, 2012), 81.

114

undertaken on the vulnerability of children surrounding disasters assist in extending current

awareness of the impacts of disasters in general, and for particular societal groups, while

conveying valuable messages for future child-centric disaster risk management.351

Phillips et

al. reject the dominant theory of the physical processes of a disaster, and support the concept

of social vulnerability, emphasising the increased vulnerability of children.352

However, as

Twigg indicated, the majority of child-based disaster literature focuses on their immediate

needs rather than looking at the broader vulnerability of children in the disaster cycle and try

to reduce those risks.353

Peek explains children can be acutely vulnerable to sudden and slow

onset disaster situations, facing many potential physical and psychological risks following a

natural disaster, as well as fast and slow onset impacts to their development particularly in the

area of education, family separation, displacement, abuse or exploitation.354

Slow-onset risks

that children can be exposed to during and after a disaster are diverse. They may vary from

health concerns of general development, education, malnutrition or diseases, or abuse and

exploitation through participation in forced labour or as child soldiers or sexual abuse.

Psychological damage, increased poverty or separation from their families, are also long-term

effects that also need to be considered.

This thesis adopts a holistic approach to such risks by recognising all dangers faced by

children during and after a disaster. Nevertheless, it must be noted that there is no ‘one-size-

fits all’ when it comes to potential risks which children can face, as they may be exposed to

differing risks at different points of the disaster cycle. This necessitates local ownership of

community-based DRR programming to identify the risks affecting each individual

community.355

A number of non-governmental actors and academics in the field are producing

practical reports highlighting risks and depicting case studies where child-focussed DRR

projects have been successful in highlighting child agency.356

351

William A. Anderson, “Bringing Children into Focus on the Social Science Disaster Research Agenda,”

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 23, no. 3, (2005): 172. 352

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters (Boca Raton: CRC Group, 2010), 161. 353

Twigg, John, "Disaster Risk Reduction: Mitigation and Preparedness in Development and Emergency

Programming," (London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004), 32. 354

Lori Peek, "Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacity, and Promoting

Resilience - an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008):1-29. 355

Aradhna Duggal-Chadha, “Children and Disasters,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 25, no. 4 (2006): 85. 356

See Aradhna Duggal-Chadha, "Children and Disasters: World Disasters Report." Refugee Survey Quarterly

25, no. 4 (2006) 85-90; Amer Jabry, "After the Cameras Have Gone: Children in Disasters." London: Plan

115

Cannon explores the concept of vulnerability in natural disasters in relation to the livelihood,

wellbeing, self-protection of individuals and households, influenced by the social protection

and governance in the institutional management of disaster impacts. 357

This argument could

maintain a holistic approach to child protection includes the use of the household as a context

for vulnerability research as the role of caregivers can assist certain aspects of child

protection. Alternatively, a focus on the household can allow for the concentration on the

family unit, and in the case of children, put too much focus on the needs and vulnerabilities of

their caregivers, which may not coincide with those of children. Peek emphasises the frequent

assumption from governments and humanitarian actors, where children’s needs will be met if

the parent’s needs are appeased, despite children’s specific needs due to varying levels of

development.358

Phillips et al. express current research in the field has a limited scope of

solely studying children as part of the household; many existing research outputs in the field

do not investigate other scenarios where children may be at risk should a disaster occur, such

as if they are separated from their families, or schools procedures for an impending disaster.359

Despite this analysis of current research and a description of the various impacts on children,

Phillips et al. provide few insights into furthering research on child vulnerability in disasters,

nor offer strategies to counter the risks they describe. As a result, this research assists in

bridging the gap between existing research on child vulnerability and donor-partner processes

to reduce the risks faced. Kuper examines ways the EU should react to the risks children face

in crises by focussing on specific parts of human security, with particular reference to the

International, 2003; Fran Seballos et al. "Children and Disasters: Understanding Impact and Enabling Agency."

In Children in a changing climate, ed. Laura Cornish (Brighton: Institute of Development, 2011); Ben Wisner,

Let our children teach us! A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction

(Bangalore: Books for change, 2006); Mitchell, Tom, Thomas Tanner, and Katharine Haynes. Children as

Agents of Change for Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines (Brighton:

Institute of Development Studies, 2009); International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Towards a Culture of

Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School (Geneva: United Nations, 2007); Plan International and

World Vision, Children on the Frontline (London; Monrovia: Plan International and World Vision, 2009); Lori

Peek, "Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacity, and Promoting Resilience -

an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008): 1-29. 357


Paper No. 2008/34], (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008). 358


Resilience - an Introduction." Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008): 1-29. 359

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters (Boca Raton: CRC Group, 2010), 161.

116

participation of children in policy formation.360

Despite these research outputs in the field,

there remains a deficiency of research on the institutional aspects of aid provisions and DRR

processes to reduce child vulnerability.

The difficulty with the EU’s complex policy and institutional systems is often immediate aid

ends and development or reconstruction programmes have not yet commenced, generating a

grey area where protectionism of children and their rights can be neglected. By reinforcing

child protection measures to reduce the risks of a disaster faced by children, such a grey area

can be avoided. States also have a tendency to focus on supporting children after a disaster by

tending to their immediate needs, and long-term effects are sidelined. Often, only risks which

occur as an immediate repercussion of a disaster are accounted for within disaster

management strategies. Risks such as exploitation, intra-family violence, or trafficking are

often ignored in policy formation, despite their ongoing nature, which makes said risks

damaging to a child’s future. Community structures are not in place to reduce said risks, and

thus children are not prepared for the associated risks of other impending crises. Such a

superficial approach in policy formation marginalises children. The adoption of a

comprehensive preventative, rather than reactive, response to threats is thus necessary.

Reactions of policy makers towards the social vulnerability of children prompts discussion of

the concept of universal child vulnerability surrounding disasters. If a child is at risk of, or

exposed to, a form of danger prior to a disaster, the risk is more prevalent for those who were

vulnerable before the disaster, such as the trafficking of children.361

The risk is then enhanced

in a post-disaster setting, when societal structures can be further weakened. This leads to the

argument of whether children are to be considered less socially vulnerable after a disaster in a

developed nation than those in less developed states, due to increased or more resilient social

structures. Duggal-Chadha states that children are affected differently in the various social

climates when there is a disaster; disasters differentiate between the diverse cultural and

360

Jenny Kuper, ‘A Minor Matter? The Place of Young People as part of the EU security doctrine.’


Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale, "Human Rights and Disaster," in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. B Wisner et al, (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 70.

117

environmental situations children live in and thus have differing vulnerabilities.362

According

to Hewitt, in a contemporary setting, levels of vulnerability can differ according to social

circumstance, as well as where societies in crises are in the stages of development.363

One

Member of the European Parliament supports this notion, stating:

“One thing we must bear in mind is that disasters, natural

disasters and manmade disasters, are by nature intrinsically

unfair, are intrinsically unequal. Why? Because they effect

most the ones that have less, typically. It’s easy to understand

that an earthquake of 9-magnitude does not have the same

effect if it occurs in Haiti or in Japan (...) So if the disasters

approach must have any keystone, it must be to try to solve

those inequalities – on the means people have to protect

themselves, and their families, and their goods. Any socially

fair approach to the problem must include this keystone to try

to combat inequalities either among countries, or among

people in the same country.” 364

While all citizens can be at risk surrounding disasters, risks for certain societal groups, such as

children are enhanced by varying factors, whether social or physical, reinforcing the need for

protectionism to mitigate against those risks. Despite the universality of the need for child

protection, it can be argued that the level of social vulnerability may vary, leading to the

question of whether all children are inherently vulnerable simply due to their age. Wisner et

al. explain humans do not all have the same experience when there is a disaster, as societal

dynamics ascertain those groups or individuals who are more threatened by hazards.365

There

are differing views of whether children should be considered as fundamentally vulnerable,

simply because of their presence when there is a disaster. There has been a series of literature

362

Aradhna Duggal-Chadha, “Children and Disasters,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 25, no. 4 (2006): 85. 363

Kenneth Hewitt, Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters, (Harlow, Addison Wesley

Longman Ltd, 1997), 27. 364

Interview excerpt, Del to ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly /Committee on ENVI, 11/11/ 2010. 365

Ben Wisner et al., At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, (New York: Routledge,

2004), 6.

118

on vulnerability, with the agreement that children are physically and psychologically at risk,366

yet by adopting holistic approach to protectionism, and embedded the subsequent needs

within DRR policies and subsequent programming is not, however, to say that children are

inherently vulnerable surrounding a disaster. It is a question of how the lexis in policy

formation considers ‘protection,’ and rather than perceiving social factions as marginalised,

look to protection to ensure all rights are upheld. The consequent praxis based on protection of

all forms of risk, and agency of children, through the engagement in the decision-making

process. Rather than focussing on the vulnerability of social groups, marginalised groups can

be considered as resilient in certain aspects of disaster management.367

Tierney and Oliver-

Smith describe ‘social units’ as having specific ‘assets and deficiencies’ surrounding a

disaster.368

Often the stress is on the latter, rather than the former. Children are often

stereotyped as passive victims or as being dependent on adults, and rarely considered as social

capital. On the contrary, children often can have a fundamental role to play in all phases of

disaster risk management, through the participation in DRR policy formation and subsequent

action at a local level. In the context of manmade disasters, Hart and Tryer believe children

should be considered as autonomous in their actions given that in a disaster context they are

often in situations where they have to make decisions and care for themselves or others in

order to manage the risks they face surrounding a disaster.369

Wisner looks to education and

knowledge management to highlight areas for action in disaster risk management at a

366

See Avigdor Klingman, “Children under stress of war,” in Helping children cope with disasters and

terrorism, eds. Annette M La Greca et al. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2002), 359-

380; Aradhna Duggal-Chadha, “Children and Disasters,” Refugee Survey Quarterly 25, no. 4, (2006):85-90;

Cannon et al., “Social Vulnerability, Sustainable livelihoods and disasters,”

http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Social_vulnerability_sust_live.pdf , Accessed: 21 July 2011; Inka

Weissbecker et al., “Psychological and Physiological Correlates of Stress in Children Exposed to Disaster:

Current Research and Recommendations for Intervention,” Children, Youth and Environments 18, no.1 (2008):

30-70. 367

See Lindsey Jones et al., Responding to a changing climate: exploring how disaster risk reduction, social

protection and livelihoods approaches promote features of capacity (London: Overseas Development Institute,

2010) 3; Mark De Bruijne et al., “Resilience: Exploring the Concept and its meanings,” in Designing Resilience:

Preparing for extreme events, eds. L K Comfort et al., (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010), 13. 368


Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 30, no. 2 (2012): 129. 369

Jason Hart and Bex Tryer, ‘Research with Children Living in Situations of Armed Conflict: Concepts, Ethics

and Methods,’ RSC Working Paper Series, (2006), 10

http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Social_vulnerability_sust_live.pdf

119

community level, particularly looking at the role of agencies, and partnerships.370

His work

does not, however, extend his discussion on DRR education to knowledge exchange with

children, and role of children in the decision-making surrounding disaster risk management.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, children’s participation in mitigation and preparedness

phases through DRR policy formation and programming have assisted in their resilience. In

recovery phases, children can also display resiliency where a child may need to act

independently, for instance if their parents have been displaced, or are occupied with post-

disaster recovery actions. This is not only a benefit to provide a different lens to reducing the

disaster risks, but the right of children to participate in both the formation of those policy

formation and the implementation of those policies.


Despite the variety of approaches to human security, there has been an increasing

acknowledgment from scholars and policy makers alike of the realignment from protecting

state security to the protection of people and their rights.371

Ogata and Cels state that human

security represents not so much a shift from state security to that of individuals, but assists in

uniting national and development strategies, whilst presenting a context to recognise the

protection of rights in volatile conditions.372

The multi-faceted nature of this research in analysing the EU and its increased action towards

DRR and child rights in its foreign policy implies there is no single theoretical framework to

apply to it. It is, therefore, necessary to debate human security in the context of the focal areas

of human rights, and social vulnerability. When looking at human rights violations in

conjunction with social vulnerability, it first must be recognised that human rights

370

Ben Wisner, Let our children teach Us! A review of the role of education and knowledge in disaster risk

reduction, (Bangalore: Books for Change, 2006). 371

See Berma Klein Goldewijk, ‘Why human? The interlinkages between security, rights and development,’

Security and Human Rights No. 1 (2008): 24-36; Georg Frerks, ‘Human security as a discourse and counter-

discourse,’ Security and Human Rights No. 1, (2008): 8-14; Mary Kaldor et al., ‘Human Security: a new

strategic narrative for Europe,’ International Affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 273-288; Lloyd Axworthy, ‘Human

Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,’ Global Governance 7, no. 1 (2001): 19-23. 372

Sadako Ogata and Johan Cels, ‘Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People,’ in Global

Governance 9, no.3 (2003): 275.

120

traditionally did not have a place in the social sciences. This is due to the ethical basis of

human rights and vulnerability, as opposed to strong empirical evidence or impartial research

as conventional methodologies for sociological investigations.373

However Turner argues that

to achieve a ‘sociology of rights’, moral discourse must be included in such studies, while also

maintaining that where politics are concerned, normative appraisal forms a valid part of such

analysis.374

This view links directly to the responsibilities of states in upholding human rights.

Yet, there is an impasse where recognition of human rights in political decision-making is to

be implemented. In an international context, the implementation of human rights in donor

foreign policy objectives can have an impact on local levels of vulnerability of those at risk.

Indeed, if rights are not effectively translated into practice, there can be a regression of

reduced vulnerability, to the point where local vulnerability can be increased. Consequently,

the application of the underlying principle of human rights in donor implementation strategies

can impact the immediate protection of those at risk, but also future levels of vulnerability.

One DRR practitioner sees the role of donors as centred on immediate needs, and the

underlying causal factors of risk are disregarded:

“I think vulnerability is a real problem area for them because

the underlying logic for addressing social vulnerability issues

is you’ve got to change society, and disaster funders are not

in that kind of business, they don’t have that kind of

concept.”375

This statement brings with it a discussion of the whether existing local societal structures and

customs need the influence of donors, and what impact their role will have on vulnerability.

One DRR practitioner confirms there needs to be recognition of the impact of DRR

programming, and the impact of DRR activities, “Are you, by creating a water dam, creating

more conflicts in that region because you’re creating basically a focal point, for people to

373

Rhiannon Morgan, and Bryan S. Turner, Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science Perspectives (Abingdon:

Routledge, 2009), 3. 374

Ibid, 5. 375


121

come to fight over water…unbelievably consequential.”376

Riddell remarked the effectiveness

of donorship often centres on the impact of programming in-country, but that more attention

needs to be paid on the tensions of providing both short and long-term assistance.377

Employ

of a rights-based approach assists in bridging this gap between the immediate and sustainable

development of partner countries, with a shift away from the immediate needs, to ensure

donorship upholds the rights of those at risk. In doing so, a rights-based approach recognises

the capabilities of local individuals and community structures in reducing risk at a local level.

There have been significant increases in examining the humanistic features of disasters over

recent decades, particularly looking at the interrelationship between human rights and

disasters and humanitarian relief.

The basis of the human right-based approach, as promoted through the model of human

security, is three-fold. It firstly confirms the responsibilities of duty bearers, primarily nation-

states, international organisations, and agencies to protect individuals and their rights. This

research undertakes a human rights based approach, working on the assumption that the

defence of human rights shall underline disaster management of donor and recipient states,

while also featuring predominantly in the humanitarian relief and disaster risk reduction

strategies of donors. Secondly, the processes of those actors in fulfilling those rights must be

accountable and transparent, and contextually appropriate. Thirdly, individuals and groups

must enjoy the right to agency, which includes both participation and empowerment in policy

formation and in the implementation of those policies.378

A human rights-based approach to

disaster management transcends the provision of immediate humanitarian assistance in the

form of disaster relief, as implemented through a needs based approach. Instead, DRR as part

of disaster risk management recognises the right of individuals and communities to protection

and resilience throughout the disaster cycle. It acknowledges both physical and social risks in

DRR policy formation and subsequent DRR project implementation. Alongside this

acknowledgement of social vulnerability, is the requirement of policy makers and

376

Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/9/2012. 377

Roger C. Riddell, “Does Foreign Aid Really Work?” Background Paper to Keynote Address, Australasian

Aid and International Development Workshop, February 2014, http://devpolicy.org/2014-Australasian-Aid-and-

International-Development-Policy-Workshop/Roger-Riddell-Background-Paper.pdf, Accessed: 25 February

2014. 378

ECPAT

http://devpolicy.org/2014-Australasian-Aid-and-International-Development-Policy-Workshop/Roger-Riddell-Background-Paper.pdf


122

practitioners to empower social groups through participation in the decision-making process,

whilst remaining accountable and transparent in their implementation phases of the resultant

policy.

By evaluating DRR policies and subsequent programming through the recognition and

defence of human rights signifies a humanistic view of disasters, rather than traditional

observations of disasters as a technical phenomenon. Because of a reliance on the dominant

approach to disasters, where the focus is on tangible aspects such as the infrastructural or

environmental consequences of a disaster, social risks are often disregarded in DRR policy

formation and subsequent implementation. This is mirrored in humanitarian aid policy

formation where humanitarian actors often do not employ a holistic approach to disaster

management. Policy makers tend to focus on reducing the impact of technical aspects of a

disaster through reinforcing infrastructural or environmental aspects of a disaster, and do not

emphasise social repercussions of a disaster. Turner recently merged the approaches of human

rights theory and social vulnerability by confirming the significance of human rights in

evaluating disasters through sociological analysis.379

While not child-focussed, his emphasis

on the defence of human rights throughout the disaster cycle assists in encouraging the

application of human rights in DRR policy formation. This is represented in the figure below:

379

Bryan S Turner, Vulnerability and Human Rights (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,

2006).

123

Figure 3.2 Conceptual model based on human rights, social vulnerability, and the

core principles of the human security model to create a comprehensive DRR policy

formation

The human security model which ensures a rights-based approach to policy and practice, and

which is recognisant of social vulnerabilities, provides the basis for holistic DRR policy and

project implementation. The umbrella human security model, when coupled with lexis of

human rights and social vulnerability, merge to create a single conceptual framework. Holistic

approaches to vulnerability and any subsequent risks enable a rights-based approach through

DRR programming. The theoretical basis for this research can then be applied to DRR as a

facet of foreign policy, providing a strong foundation for the analysis of praxis.

Figure 1.1 from Chapter I outlined the rights-based methodological components of this

research, which can consequently be adjusted to reflect the conceptual framework basis of this

research. In doing so, Figure 2.7 below assists in acknowledging the association between a

124

rights-based approach to child protection in DRR, the research methodology and the

theoretical framework.

Figure 3.3: A comprehensive theoretical and methodological framework for assessing

EU partnerships in DRR in the Asia Pacific.

125

As shown in the above figure, the theoretical framework of human security assists in

providing an umbrella justification for how and why lexis on rights and vulnerability in DRR

strategies influence levels of child protection through DRR praxis.

While there is existing literature available on DRR education and learning, Phillips et al.

clarify there is a lack of social research on the capabilities of children as recipients or sources

of risk information to influence decision making.380

Sen describes the complementarity of

human rights and capabilities, where human rights can be considered as ‘entitlements to

certain basic capabilities,’ but this needs to be based on a universal approach to human rights

and capabilities.381

Indeed, Cannon views the concept of resilience as the ‘non-victimhood’ of

individuals or actors, thus focusing on their capability to recover from the impacts of

disasters.382

Yet resilience within this research implies a broader view of the concept to

embody the entire disaster cycle, rather than just the response from a disaster. If resilience

implies immediate losses, as Cannon suggests and the UNISDR promote,383

the focus of the

term is the ability to ‘build back better’ in response and recovery phases, rather than prevent

against such losses.384

The reference to ‘build’ also indicates a technical approach to recovery

and reconstruction, and can sideline the strengthening of social constructs to reduce the risk of

the collapse of community structures in a future disaster context. Kapucu et al. suggest the

term should be inclusive of the capability of a community to modify disaster risk management

processes founded on local values and goals, and with a focus on social capital.385

This study

agrees with the essential role of social capital in a community’s resilience, particularly of

societal groups such as children, but the term continues to be centred on individual and

community evolution in the aftermath of a disaster. There is a need for increased recognition

in the employ of the term resilience to embrace an individual or group’s ability to withstand

380

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters (Boca Raton: CRC Group, 2010), 161. 381

Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development 6, no. 2 (2005): 151-166. 382


Paper No. 2008/34], (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008), 9. 383

UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, ‘UNISDR Terminology for Disaster Risk Reduction


20 May 2011. 384

Naim Kapucu et al., “Emerging Research in Disaster Resiliency and Sustainability,” Disaster Resiliency:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Naim Kapucu, Christopher V. Hawkins, Fernando I. Rivera, (New York;

London: Routledge, 2013), 357. 385

Ibid., 357.


126

the impacts of a disaster. The role of empowerment and participation of societal groups in

holistic rights-based risk assessments (comprehensive of both technical and social risks) in the

pre-disaster phases will assist in mainstreaming resilience, as preventative measures to reduce

risk. Agency of children and social factions in general through participation and engagement

in decision-making and DRR practices ensures not only that risks are registered, but also

empowers citizens to draw on their capabilities to respond and act autonomously to the risks

they face, whether immediate or long term. Empowerment then also can be cost-effective in

that capabilities are drawn on, and risk reduction is realistic and contextual to the citizens’

requirements.

This chapter assisted in intertwining aspects of the human security model, as the theoretical

basis of this research. Discussions of current literature and observations on human security,

and the respective spheres of rights, and the concept of social vulnerability in

humanitarianism, have provided scope as to whether foreign policy mechanisms can be

effective in upholding child rights, and reducing vulnerability. In doing so, this chapter has

established a platform for discussing specific areas of EU lexis and praxis, both child-centric

and general, surrounding DRR programming at a local level in the Asia Pacific. This chapter

has drawn on the key concepts underpinning the human security model, in order to look at

specific examples of lexis and praxis in EU DRR partnerships in the following chapters.

The following chapters analyse further the empirical components of this thesis, firstly through

lexical analysis in policy formation at an EU level in Chapter III, followed by features of DRR

praxis at both an institutional level, and local level in the subsequent Chapters IV and V.

127

CHAPTER IV

IDENTIFYING RIGHTS-BASED APPROACHES IN EU &

MEMBER STATE DRR POLICY LEXIS

____________________________________________________

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The first part of the data analysis presented in this chapter accounts for the recognition of the

rights-based lexis. Specifically, it looks at indications of child risks and child protection

measures in EU and Member States development and humanitarian, and DRR policies. As the

preliminary aspect of the lexis-praxis methodology, tangible examples of rights-based lexis

towards DRR within EU institutional and Member State humanitarian and development

policies, allows for greater understanding of EU and Member State coherence and the

mainstreaming of human rights, particularly the rights of children, prior to the analysis of

channels used to implement those values through praxis. This is achieved through content

analysis of the policies, as part of the rights-based impact assessments.386

EU and Member

States’ policy formation throughout the decade of 2002-2012 to be covered in this chapter

looks to the primary themes of this research: reducing risk and increasing child protection.

The following lexical analysis depicts the disparities between the DRR policies of the EU and

Member States, despite all having signed up to the international equivalent of the HFA. DRR

falls into the awkward grey area between humanitarian aid and development, making EU

foreign policy implementation more complicated. The lack of an effective policy continuum,

or indeed a policy overlap of EU agency functions, has an effect on how the EU implements

its DRR policy in projects around the world. This also has an effect on how the EU

acknowledges its values, including human rights, within its DRR strategy.

Child protection in DRR policy lexis is then reviewed to translate into partnerships between

the EU, its Member States, and third parties. The identification of lexis chosen in policy

386

See Appendix II for full outline of the policies included, and terms of analysis.

128

formation then establishes a foundation for the application of the model of human security, in

order to review praxis channels in Chapters IV and V.

4.2 THE SCOPE OF LEXICAL ANALYSIS

A holistic presentation of patterns of lexis in policy formation embodies features of the rights

children possess and need to be retained in internal policy formation, external action policies,

and specific DRR strategies as foreign policy mechanisms. This is particularly important

within the sphere of external action, where the values and objectives of donors must be

comprehensible to implementing partner organisations, and partner countries, to ensure a

cohesive response to overseas assistance. As the EU and Member States generally act through

third parties to assist countries when there is a disaster, policies must clearly define the

parameters of the actions to take place for consistent implementation.

As such, this chapter reviews the EU and its Member States’ regard for child protection as

part of DRR programming, by reviewing lexis vis-à-vis the international convention specific

to children and child rights, the UNCRC. Lexis indicative of the EU and Member States’

ratification of the UNCRC denotes whether such behaviour is symptomatic of the European

Community. The child rights applicable to the provision of aid and disasters within the

UNCRC are found notably in Articles 2, 3, 6, and 12 of the Convention, as expanded on in

the previous chapter. The EU and Member States’ recognition of those rights in the lexis used

in policy formation denotes specific actions to protect those rights surrounding a disaster. As

this chapter presents, variations of terminology in EU external action policy formation has

institutional and external implications on how the EU acts surrounding a natural disaster.

Variations in terminology for disaster management can cause ineffective decision-making and

weaken a formal position form the EU as a supranational entity on foreign policy matters.

That is, a lack of stable lexis can lead to confusion for EU institutions and external partners of

the EU’s position on disaster management. The need to address the employ of disaster

terminology has been supported by an external evaluation of DG ECHO, undertaken in 2008

by a group of DRR experts, who also found the EU needed to:

129

“clarify and simplify terminology by immediately and singularly

adopting the term ‘disaster risk reduction,’ for all activities under

preparedness, mitigation, prevention, response and recovery.”387

This chapter surrounds comparisons of needs and rights-based approaches to foreign policy

formation, based on the lexical methodological grounds expanded on in Chapter I. Policy

analysis used the following rights-based lexis to evaluate whether the EU and Member States

are employing needs-based or rights-based approaches to assistance and DRR in particular.

Any reference in policy formation to ‘needs’ or ‘rights’ were evaluated to focus solely on

references to these terms in the context of the protection of needs or rights. Human rights are

progressively being highlighted in both EU and Member State foreign policy, as rights seem

to play an increasing role in foreign policy decisions and partner dialogue. South et al.

reported on the position of human rights in external action supports the development of

human rights within the area of humanitarian assistance:

“A defining feature of the ‘protective turn’ in

humanitarianism was a shift from viewing vulnerable

civilians as passive victims, to assisting and protecting them

as active rights holders.”388

Such a statement emphasises the EU’s role in protecting victims of crises, through ensuring

their right to protection and their right to life. Though until recently, the EU has favoured

more coercive ways of dealing with human rights violations, looking at prosecuting those

who have carried out human rights abuses.389

However, there has been a small but necessary

shift by the EU in its internal policy formation from an anti-crime methodology to a more

integrated approach with an acknowledgement of human rights, based on prevention and

protection. Yet the implementation of these positive shifts to a rights-based approach in

policy formation leaves much room for improvement, regarding the alignment of EU and

387

I Wilderspin et al., Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming in DG ECHO’s humanitarian

actions: Final Report (Brussels: European Commission, 2008), 7.

http://www.ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2008/DRRMainstreaming.pdf , Accessed: 15 July 2011. 388

Ashley South, Simon Harragin, et al. "Local to Global Protection in Myanmar, Sudan, South Sudan and

Zimbabwe [HPN Paper No 72]." edited by Humanitarian Practice Network (London: Overseas Development

Institute, 2012), 1. 389

Silvia Scarpa, Trafficking in human beings: modern slavery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 171-

205.

http://www.ec.europa.eu/echo/files/policies/evaluation/2008/DRRMainstreaming.pdf

130

Member State policies. This is also the case for a more rights-based approach to EU and

Member States external policies and consequently EU policies are evaluated to deduce

whether the shift to a more human rights-based approach conveys a positive shift to

protecting child and their rights. Do the policies reflect the responsibilities of the EU and its

Member States through the employ of a rights-based approach? Or, do they represent a needs-

based approach based on immediate, limited assistance? Have child rights been recognised in

Member State policies to reflect the values promoted by the EU in its overarching policies?

Have Member States highlighted child rights in both umbrella foreign policy documents and

in specific disaster management policies to incorporate rights into DRR programming?

Due to the many institutions shaping the EU’s external action, this study undertook content

analysis of EU policies390

from various agencies under the European Commission, as the

EU’s executive branch. The figure below shows the focal Commission departments involved

in aspects of this study.

Figure 4.1 Proportion of European Commission policies applicable to child-centric

DRR.

390

See Appendix II for a full list of the EU policies included in this study.

EEAS

ECHO/DIPECHO

DEVCO

JUSTICE

131

Figure 4.1 represents the distribution of policies analysed for each of the EU agencies

depicted to represent the EU’s administration of the various facets of this research. The

Directorate General of Justice is charged with representing fundamental rights of all citizens.

While not involved in the implementation of external policies per se, many of the overarching

human rights policies under its governance concern both European Community citizens and

third country nationals.391

The management of disaster risk forms part of humanitarian and

development aid, and as such, is performed through both DG ECHO and DG DEVCO. After

being classified as a DG in 2004, from 2010 DG ECHO now also incorporates civil

protection for cases of humanitarian assistance within the European Community.392

DIPECHO, or Disaster Preparedness ECHO, is the branch of the EU, which engages in

specific DRR actions, under the mandate of ECHO. The EEAS as the umbrella institution for

external action represents the holistic policies on human rights and democracy, activating all

policies concerning child rights in external action. Due to the complexity and multi-faceted

nature of the data pulled from the policy analysis, it was necessary to streamline the variables

to highlight specific lexis to evaluate coherence amongst the members of the European

Community. At the supranational level, the EU EEAS, and the Directorate Generals of

Development and Cooperation (DG DEVCO), European Community Humanitarian Office

(DG ECHO), and Justice were included to provide a comprehensive view of all external

assistance and approaches to rights.

Given the number of policies relevant to this research, all policies under the EEAS, DEVCO

and ECHO have been filtered to the thematic areas of human rights, child rights, general

development, humanitarian aid, DRR, and procedural documents for partnerships with third

parties, namely FPA partner documents. Analysing thematic trends amongst policies indicates

the scope of each policy, in addition to deducting whether policy lexis differs between the

themes of policy documents. Table 4.1 below depicts the breakdown of European

Commission policies analysed by these thematic areas.

391

See Appendix II for a full list of the EU policies included in this study. 392

European Commission website, “European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection,”

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/about/index_en.htm Accessed: 1 October 2013.

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/about/index_en.htm

132

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

CHILD

RIGHTS

HUMAN

RIGHTS

HUMANITARIAN

AID

DEVELOPMENT

AID DRR PARTNERS TOTAL

DG DEVCO

4

4

DG ECHO/DIPECHO

2

5 2 9

DG JUSTICE 5

5

EEAS 5 5

3 13

TOTAL 10 5 2 4 5 5 31

Table 4.1 Thematic classification of European Commission policy profiling.

Of the foreign policies evaluated from the European Commission,393

the prevalence of

ownership resides under the External Action services, covering the human rights and

partnership aspects of the study. The distribution of development, humanitarian, and DRR

policies demonstrates the similar roles, and potential overlap of the institutions. Partnership

documents for humanitarian and development assistance are implemented under both ECHO

and EEAS, which can also cause confusion for partner countries and organisations. DRR-

specific policies are solely under the governance of DG ECHO, given the role of DRR in the

common development and humanitarian aid documents with reference to important aspects of

DRR, there is also potential for policy overlap, as will be analysed further throughout the

subsequent chapters.

In addition to European institutional document analysis, the foreign policies of EU Member

States were also included in the study. By the end of the period under scrutiny, the EU

incorporated 27 Member States for policy analysis. The table below demonstrates the

European countries and policies examined through content analysis.

393


133

Member States 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Austria

1

1

2

Belgium

1 1

2

Cyprus

1

1

Czech Republic

2

2

Denmark 1

1 1 1

4

Estonia

1

1

Finland

1 1

2

France

1 1

2

Germany

1

1

1 1 4

Hungary

1

1

Ireland

1 1

1

3

Italy

1

1

Latvia

1

1

Luxembourg

1

1

2

Malta

1

1

Netherlands

1

1

2

Poland

1

1

Portugal

1 1

2

Romania

1

1

Slovakia

1

1

Slovenia

1

1

Spain

1

1

Sweden

1

1 1

3

United Kingdom

2

1

3

Grand Total 1 3 6 4 6 11 9 3 1 44

Table 4.2 Member State foreign policy formation from 2003-2012 corresponding to a

rights-based approach to DRR.394

Not all Member States had a current humanitarian or development policy document available

for analysis by means of their foreign policy website at the time of data collection. As such,

the policy profiling of Greece, Lithuania, and Bulgaria was omitted from the study. Some

websites were inaccessible, as was the case of Lithuania and Bulgaria, while the website for

Greece’s aid mechanism, Hellenic Aid, was not translatable into English. That is not to say

these three Member States are not involved in providing assistance. Indeed, Greece is an

Overseas Development Assistance provider under the Organisation for Economic

Cooperation and Development (OECD), but any assistance in most recent years has been

directed at European Neighbourhood partners, rather than a focus on the Asia Pacific. As

demonstrated in Table 3.2, 2010 and 2011 saw a spike in policy formation from Member

394


134

States, both old and new Member States. This could be due to the inauguration of the Lisbon

Treaty and enhanced European external action strategies, and in response to the 2009

Commission Report on improved coherence within the European Community development

assistance.395

As most policy documents of Member States embrace specific themes, data analysis was

assisted by thematic categorisation synonymous to that of the EU policies. As such, Member

State policies encompassed human rights, child rights, development, humanitarian aid, and

DRR, as indicated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 4.2 Thematic policies of European Union Member States.

395

European Commission, EU 2009 report on policy coherence for development, (Brussels: European

Commission, 2009).

KEY HUMAN RIGHTS

CHILD

DEVELOPMENT

HUMANITARIAN

DEV /

HUMANITARN

DRR

PARTNER

135

Besides Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom, there was no recognition of the

importance of DRR as a foreign policy mechanism in a separate policy document, but was

sometimes incorporated as part of humanitarian or development assistance. Similarly, some

Member State approaches towards humanitarian aid and development have merged the two

areas of assistance into one policy document, providing a broad overview for third parties of

assistance as part of foreign policy, as was the case of Estonia and the Czech Republic, who

became international donors in the 1990s,396

and joined the EU in the 2004 enlargement. The

choice to outline foreign policy objectives in holistic or thematic documents can have two

outcomes. They may lessen the value in reducing risks of disasters and make it more difficult

for third parties to identify and align with the Member States foreign policy objectives.

Alternatively, this may assist in mainstreaming DRR and child rights through European

humanitarian aid and development assistance. The tension around mainstreaming or isolating

risk and protection measures will be analysed further through the following chapters, in both

lexis and praxis measures.

As previously mentioned, there is a tendency for states to favour a needs-based approach to

providing assistance in partner countries, through the focus on immediate risks, or needs,

rather than a rights-based approach,397

which incorporates both needs and other forms of

vulnerability in order to uphold the rights of those at risk. This short-term approach with a

focus on immediate needs of those at risk, while applicable for disaster response does not

cover risks throughout the disaster cycle. A rights-based approach ensures not only the needs

of individuals and groups are met but their rights to participation in policy formation, and

non-discrimination, in the protection and assistance provided throughout the disaster cycle.

To review whether policies across EU external action agencies are synthesised in representing

the EU’s principle of human rights, lexical analysis in Figure 3.3 of external policies is

depicted, according to the policy themes of human rights, development, humanitarian aid,

DRR, and partner documents.

396

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/dac, Accessed: 1 September

2013. 397

K Kenny, When needs are rights: an overview of UN efforts to integrate human rights in humanitarian action

[Occasional paper #38], (Providence, The Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies, 2000), 6.

http://www.oecd.org/dac

136

Figure 4.3 Representation of rights across EEAS and DG ECHO and DG DEVCO

For the European Union, the umbrella agency for EU foreign policy mechanisms, the EEAS,

has explicitly cited human rights as the ‘silver thread weaving through all external action,

both at home and abroad.’398

The thematic areas of the EEAS policies indicate its prerequisite

to uphold human rights in policy lexis, where its policy documents primarily surround

children, human rights, and partner documents. In comparison, the thematic areas of DG

ECHO and DG DEVCO demonstrate the focus of the agencies is on the development and

humanitarian action, and to a lesser degree, partner documents. In these areas, there is a

significant reduction of the incorporation of rights lexis in the policies. As such, Figure 3.3

demonstrates how the principle of human rights underpinning its holistic EEAS policies, do

not translate to the specific policies under DG ECHO and DG DEVCO. This indicates a lack

of transference of the principle of human rights in policy lexis to specific external

mechanisms. Yet between DG ECHO and DG DEVCO, the EU’s use of rights-based, or

needs-based approaches in external action may vary for the type of assistance given, whether

development or humanitarian, as demonstrated in the following Figure:

398

European Commission, Human Rights and Democracy at the heart of EU external action – towards a more

effective approach, (Brussels: European Commission, 2011), 4.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

DEV

DEV

DEV

DEV

DR

R

HA

DR

R

DR

R

PA

RTN

ER HA

PA

RTN

ER

DR

R

CH

ILD

CH

ILD

CH

ILD

CH

ILD

CH

ILD HR

HR

PA

RTN

ER

PA

RTN

ER

PA

RTN

ER HR

HR

HR

DEVCO DEVCO DEVCO DEVCO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS

2005 2009 2011 2012 2004 2007 2009a 2009b 2009c 2010a 2010b 2011 2003 2008a 2008b 2008c 2010 2011a 2011b 2011c 2011d 2011e 2011f 2012a 2012b

RIGHTS

RIGHTS

137

Figure 4.4 EU approach to needs and rights in DG DEVCO and DG ECHO policy lexis.

As depicted in Figure 3.4 above, the respective DGs of the EEAS employ differing rights and

needs based approaches in their policy lexis. When looking at how the EU illustrates its

position on human rights in its developmental and humanitarian policies, there are major

differences in what is included in the overarching policies of the EEAS, and what filters to

specific policy mechanisms under the DGs. With the exception of ECHO’s partner document,

Figure 3.4 demonstrates how policy formation under the humanitarian arm, ECHO, does not

embody a rights-based approach, where the needs of individuals and groups surrounding a

disaster are represented at a significantly higher rate than rights. Paradoxically, the solitary

case of human rights being fully recognised in ECHO policy formation is represented in a

partner document, the 2010 Framework Partnership Agreement Supporting Documents,399

which outlines the specific of ECHO activities in the field. Not only are the rights and

obligations of the parties involved in the partnership insured, but also the rights of the

beneficiaries of assistance. Mainstreaming of crosscutting issues is highlighted as a positive

area of project implementation, particularly concerning child rights and DRR.400

Under the

premise of due diligence and risk management, the rights of recipients to ‘efficient aid’ must

be met, expanding on specific working conditions and social rights, which must be considered

in the implementation of assistance.401

This documentation of rights in project

implementation is positive in ECHO policy formation. Nevertheless, the rights-based

approach more accurately embodies the mandate of the EEAS, rather than its humanitarian

mechanism ECHO. This is because humanitarian assistance, according to ECHO, represents

399

European Commission, Partnership with DG ECHO: Supporting Documents. (Brussels: European

Commission, 2010). 400

Ibid, 20. 401

Ibid, 62-63.

05

101520253035404550

DEV DEV DEV DEV DRR HA DRR DRR PARTNER HA PARTNER DRR

DEVCO DEVCO DEVCO DEVCO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO ECHO

2005 2009 2011 2012 2004 2007 2009a 2009b 2009c 2010a 2010b 2011

NEEDS

RIGHTS

138

short-term assistance, coinciding with the response and recovery phases of a disaster, which

necessitates the provision of aid based on immediate need. Yet despite being primarily needs-

based, Article 8 of ECHO’s overarching mandate, the EU Consensus for Humanitarian Aid,

upholds the rights of those they are protecting.402

The clause is therefore contentious when

lexis in specific policy mechanisms are based on the needs of individuals. This is affirmed by

one representative of ECHO:

“Exploitation of women, of children, of whomever, is

something you cannot address through humanitarian aid; it’s

a long-term effort and also very much involving political

players.”403

And yet, thematic implementation plans under ECHO, which followed this directive, such as

the 2011 Implementation plan for DRR in Developing Countries, are still very much needs-

based. While acknowledged by international human rights law within the 2007 European

Consensus on Humanitarian Aid,404

human rights are yet to be acknowledged in any of

ECHO’s DRR policy documents. Clearly, this is evidence of the humanitarian office being

unable to mainstream rights across policy formation.

Consequently, the responsibilities of ECHO to provide protection and assistance remain

tangible in essence, while exploitation of the rights of individuals is considered to be part of

the longer term projects under DG DEVCO. Policy formation under DEVCO does denote a

more rights-based than needs based approach, particularly in the 2005 Consensus for

European Development.405

In the common objectives, human rights are pivotal to sustainable

development, subsequently promoted as a common value in any interchange with third

countries.406

The rights-based approach of DEVCO is promising for activities aligned with

DRR programming, specifically CCA activities under EuropeAid and through the EU-ACP

Agreements. However, it seems DEVCO policies formed following the widespread

402

European Commission, The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid, (Brussels: Official Journal of the

European Union, 2008), Article 8 and adjoining Annex. 403

Interview excerpt, ECHO Staff, 10/11/2010. 404

European Community, The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 2008/C25/01 (Brussels: Official

Journal: 2008), Article 16. 405

European Commission, The European Consensus on Development [2006/C 46/01], (Brussels: Official

Journal of the European Union, 2005). 406

Ibid, Articles 7 and 13.

139

promotion of human rights in 2011 by the EEAS, indicates a lack of mainstreaming of rights

within external action policy formation.

In order to review human rights-based approaches across the European Community, the

formation of EU Member State humanitarian and development policies firstly required a

review of needs and rights-based lexis. Analysis of Member State policies interpreted the type

of approach Member States use (whether policies employ a needs or rights-based approach)

for their foreign policies, as well as applying a thematic filter to the foreign policies (that is

whether policies are focussed on development, humanitarian assistance, DRR, partner

organisations, children, or rights.) Member State policies are then reviewed for active

responses to recognising child rights in activities in third countries by categorically evaluating

the policies according to the UNCRC. The mirrored policy analysis between the EU and

Member States assists in identifying whether European Community humanitarian approaches

are cohesive towards respecting child rights, as promoted by the EU overarching policies, are

whether there are lessons which the EU could learn from the Member State policy formation

and implementation strategies.

Some Member States demonstrated their acknowledgement of the important role of human

rights through a separate human rights mandate. Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and

Sweden have all created separate documents to discuss the importance of respecting human

rights in overseas assistance, to align with humanitarian and development policies.407

It could

be argued the creation of a separate document to elaborate on human rights assists in the

mainstreaming of action towards human rights in a humanitarian and developmental context

as part of the umbrella foreign policy legislation. However, in the cases of the Netherlands a

separate policy outlining action towards respecting the rights of third country nationals has

not led to a holistically rights based approach to aid, as their current 2012 development policy

is fundamentally based on the needs of those they are assisting.

Similarly, Slovakia’s development policy represents primarily the needs of individuals needs-

based, while all other Member States’ development policies being rights-based, led by Spain,

Sweden, and France. For those states which have humanitarian aid policies, Denmark is the

407

See Appendix I for further details of the policy documents.

140

sole advocate for a rights-based approach to humanitarian assistance, with the majority of

States with humanitarian policies preferring an approach which focuses on the immediate

needs of individuals, in particular, Austria, Ireland, and UK prefer needs-based

implementation. This tendency for humanitarian assistance to be needs-based, and for human

rights to be the focus of development aid, is consistent with the EU’s approach to its external

policies. The overall trend of Member State overarching aid policy formation to apply a

needs-based approach is also analogous to the EU’s general vision for their assistance. While

the Netherlands stands out in its dual policy methodologies, where development aid is needs-

based, rights lexis in its human rights policy formation puts it significantly above the other

Member States in the respect for human rights and acknowledgement of the important role of

human rights in providing overseas assistance.

Across the Member States there is a distinct variation in policies surrounding human rights,

DRR, and partner documentation. The lexis in many is not fully representative of the rights of

those at risk, whom the states, as donors, have a responsibility to protect, indicating a lack of

harmonisation across Member State policy formation in upholding the rights indicated as a

core principal of EU policy. In addition, this indicates a disregard for the donorship principles

under the Paris Declaration, which the Member States donors have an obligation to uphold

and reflect in praxis. Besides humanitarian and development policies, countries which have

the highest representations of rights in policy formation is Denmark in their 2011 document

which depicts a rights-based approach to cross-cutting monitoring for partnerships with

implementation agencies. There have been very few DRR policies formed by Member States,

preferring to mention any disaster management strategies as part of the holistic humanitarian

or development legislation. Similar to the depiction of needs in DRR policy formation by EU

institutions, there is convergence amongst Member States’ Member States in the promotion of

the needs of individuals in DRR programming.

141

4.3 LEXIS TOWARDS CHILD RISKS AND CHILD RIGHTS IN EU & MEMBER

STATE POLICY FORMATION

You need to do much more than you are doing to reduce risks.

Why should any children look like this if they are

malnourished, or crushed, or flooded? We should be saying

‘Why? How can you accept this?’408

When a disaster occurs children are often overlooked, yet they can be the worst affected. At

the time of a natural or manmade disaster, children may be frightened or traumatised, while

also being at risk of separation from their families, without forms of identification, and can

become potential victims to many forms of exploitation or abuse. In theory, a comprehensive

approach to DRR also identifies the social vulnerabilities of children associated with

disasters, with have a focus on marginalised groups such as children with particular needs

surrounding a disaster.409

In doing so, lexical representation of child risks upholds child

rights. The following section looks at EU and Member State representation of child risks and

child in policy lexis in conjunction with the specific Articles 2,3,6, and 12, of the UNCRC410

as the international doctrine for upholding child rights. This section looks initially at EU and

Member State lexis of child risks, followed by analysis of EU and Member State lexis

surrounding action to uphold child rights. The objective is to analyse whether policy lexis

solely indicates the risks faced, or indeed, whether policies include measures of child-related

praxis to protect children, and uphold child rights.

Lexis representing child risks

Depictions of child risks and child rights abuses as lexis and references to the UNCRC within

EU and Member State policy demonstrate the perceptions of the EU and its Member States

towards the vulnerability of children. Lexical manifestations of the Articles of the UNCRC of

the risks to children and child rights abuses from EU institutions primarily surround Article 6

408

Everett M. Ressler, United Nations Children’s Fund, as cited in Sarah La Trobe and Paul Venton, Natural

Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice of selected institutional donors, (Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003),

10. 409


Paper No. 2008/34], (Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008). 410

Articles 2,3,6, and 12, of the UNCRC: a child’s right against discrimination, the best interests of the child, the

right to life, survival and development, and the right to participation in decision-making policy and processes.

142

- the right to life, survival, and development. The predominance of child risks under EEAS

policies coincides with the recognition of child vulnerability in the 2008 ‘Children in External

Action’ policy package. The focal 2008 ‘Communication on Children in External Action’411

to a lesser extent depicts child risks, with vulnerabilities surrounding child exploitation rather

as a withstanding issue to be addressed, than immediate risks to children, and with no explicit

mentions of risks to children in natural disasters. Child vulnerability is largely endorsed by

the adjoining ‘Working Paper on Children in Crises and Emergency Situations.’412

References to child vulnerability in the Working Paper feature both short-term and long-term

risks. Protection issues, family separation, as well as long-term concerns of development,

education, and exploitation are depicted, particularly where conflict scenarios see increased

cases of children engaging in warfare as child soldiers, as well as the exploitation of female

children. References to children in relation to Article 2 promoting the non-discrimination,

Article 3 on the best interests of the child, and Article 12 promoting the participation of

children in policy formation, remain minimal throughout EU and Member State policies.

To give context to the EU’s stance on discrimination, for the most part discrimination appears

as general references. In the analysis of the EU’s institutional approach to child

vulnerabilities coinciding with Article 2 above, risks to the discrimination of children are only

referred to specifically in the 2010 policy document on child labour, through the lens of

gender-based exploitation.413

The policy alluded to child labour as difficult to ascertain due to

unreliable data on child exploitation, particularly surrounding ‘undeclared economic

activities,’ such as bonded labour and trafficking, which the policy document linked to the

discrimination of children based on a child’s ethnic or national origins.414

Trafficking itself is

transnational by nature, which can go towards the reasons for which children are

discriminated on the basis of their identity. The fact that the sole reference to specific

discrimination is economically-focussed indicates, once again, the frequent misrepresentation

of alternate forms of discrimination requiring social protection. A 2010 Press Release

outlining the European Council’s position on child labour also implies a general push forward

411

Represented in Appendix II as EEAS 2008(a). 412

Represented in Appendix II as EEAS 2008(b). 413

European Commission, Combating Child Labour [SEC(2010)37], (Brussels: European Commission,

2010),10. 414

Ibid, 10.

143

from the European Council to increase measures towards addressing child labour using a

holistic approach to ‘discrimination’, as well as a regional and sector-specific approach

towards preventing such forms of child exploitation.415

Interestingly though, the Council

recognised the issue as not only a violation of human rights, but the need to look at child

labour as an issue of corporate social responsibility, involving a wider participation from the

business community, international organisations, and civil society, to discuss socially

responsible procurement processes at a multilateral level. This is a positive response from the

Council in the response to draw on linkages with external actors involved in internal and

external processes, as an effective means to reduce child rights violations, and increase

protection mechanisms as promoted under human security.

Risks to the best interest of children are not mentioned at all, while risks to the participation

of children are mentioned once in the 2008 Action Plan towards children in external action.416

This policy package applies to all external action mechanisms, including ECHO, but if

ECHO’s specific external policies contain no acknowledgement of child vulnerability, child

protection against the risks faced does not translate to specific external action mechanisms,

including ECHO and DIPECHO. ECHO policies exhibited no concrete examples of child

risk. While not included in the content analysis as a specific mention of action towards child

vulnerability, Article 39 of the 2007 Consensus for Humanitarian Aid alludes to vulnerability

as an aspect of humanitarian need, which the EU and its Member States must respond to.417

The Article refers to children as one particularly vulnerable group, while also broadly

advocating for the mainstreaming of protection measures against gender or sexual abuse.418

Child vulnerability and subsequent risk are represented throughout DEVCO policies. Risks to

children from DEVCO surround long-term vulnerabilities such as exploitation, education and

health, but with no reference to immediate risks. This is somewhat surprising due to the

increased role of DEVCO in undertaking programmes similar to DRR, through the funding of

climate change adaptation, which must address the causal factors and existing vulnerabilities

415

European Council, Council conclusions on child labour (Brussels: Council of the European Union, 14 June

2010,) 2. 416

Represented in Appendix II as EEAS 2008(b). 417

European Community, The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid 2008/C25/01 (Brussels: Official

Journal: 2008), Article 39 418

Ibid.

144

surrounding a disaster. This includes both immediate and long-term risks. It can be argued the

lack of immediate child risks in DEVCO policies is due to EU institutional delineation and

the consideration of immediate risks to be the responsibility of ECHO, and yet none of

ECHO’s policies recognise child risks whatsoever.

The fundamental lack of responses towards child risks, and UNCRC Articles from EU

institutional mechanisms is mirrored by the lack of recognition of the UNCRC from EU

Member States. Only five of the 27 Member States recognised the Convention on the Rights

of the Child in their external action policies. These five Member States have no correlation to

old or new Member States, East-West or North-South geo-political stances.419

The lack of

Member State correlation in policy formation is a moot issue for child protectionism. By

nature, rights are universal, and thus need to be detached from political decision-making.

Child rights should not require political alignment of policies from Member States. Indeed,

child rights and the ratification of the UNCRC should be seen as a universal obligation for

duty bearers, and an opportunity for dialogue between all Member States to uphold

responsibilities, to underpin child protectionism within foreign policy objectives and

practices. The five diverse Member States, which have recognised the UNCRC could provide

grounds to dissolve disparities in Member States’ overarching approaches, to positively

influence the other Member States to ratify the UNCRC in their foreign policy documents.

In addition to the weak representation of international obligations in overarching foreign

policy documents, Belgium and Denmark are the only two countries with exclusive child-

focussed policies for their overseas assistance, formed in 2007 and 2005 respectively.420

While somewhat dated, the two policies embody a rights-based approach to assistance and

fully recognise the state’s obligations under the UNCRC to protect children and their rights.

Both states outline the four core principles of the UNCRC, with Denmark going further to

outline its actions towards meeting its obligations to the Convention. Belgium’s policy

document classifies the principles of the UNCRC into areas of provision, protection, and

participation to outline actions towards putting the Convention into practice in its foreign

419

The five Member States with UNCRC references in foreign policy documents are Belgium, Denmark, Malta,

the Netherlands, and Spain. 420

See Appendix II for full details of the policy documents.

145

policy objectives.421

There is a strong focus on the rights to life, survival and development,

and participation, but with little outline of action towards the principle of non-discrimination

and the best interests of the child. For the latter, it is again arguably the definition of what

constitutes the best interests of the child, which hinders explicit actions towards endorsing

this Article.

The prevalence of recognition of child vulnerability focuses on Article 3 as the right to life,

survival, and development with limited indications of the accompanying focal Articles.

Denmark’s child and partner policy,422

and Estonia’s development policy mention the risks of

discrimination. Denmark explicitly mention minority, disabilities and gender related risks to

children. Risks associated with inadequate levels of participation of individuals and groups in

the various phases of policy formation and the decision-making process are highlighted by the

Netherlands and Spain in their human rights and development policy respectively. In the

overarching development policy of Spain covers the period from 2009 to 2012. The document

describes the risks associated with a lack of participación of individuals and groups,

particularly those most vulnerable, along with the importance of implementing structures to

allow their voices to be heard. Against the context of human rights, the Netherlands discuss

the violation of girls’ right to participate in early phases of the decision-making processes,

due to limited access to opportunities to participate in public and domestic debate. This is

often hampered by traditional and cultural factors which are discordant to the universality of

this right.423

In addition, the document highlights reduced participation of those experiencing

hardship in decision-making prevents individuals the opportunity draw attention to their

circumstances, and enrich their situation through the recognition of their right to the freedom

of expression.424

References within Member State policies associated with Article 6 of the Convention of the

right to life, survival, and development indicate wide-ranging existing vulnerabilities and

potential risks to children, through the acknowledgement of both immediate and slow onset

risks, within a technical and social context. For those with development policies, the slow

421

Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, The Rights of the Child

in Development Cooperation, (Brussels: Plan Belgium and UNICEF Belgium, 2007), 5. 422

Represented in Appendix II as DK (A) and DK (C). 423

Represented in Appendix II as NL(A), 2007, 43. 424

Represented in Appendix II as NL(A), 2007, 80.

146

onset risks to a child’s health, education and general development, are considered, with

specific examples of exploitation and abuse mentioned. Protection also has been highlighted

by Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and the Netherlands in the context of ensuing risks to

children and their rights. Indeed, Malta has the highest indications of child vulnerability out

of all Member State development policies, surrounding both immediate and slow onset risks

to children.425

While classified as a development policy, which consequently surrounds a

long-term risk context, Sweden also recognise the immediate needs of children, which is

assuring in the event of a natural disaster, so the immediate needs or those are attended to, as

well as long-term concerns of exploitation and a child’s health.426

Conversely, the

humanitarian aid policies of Denmark and Ireland indicate risks to the development of

children and child mortality, a core aspect of the Millennium Development Goals, and

consequently do not reflect the immediate needs of children often associated with

humanitarian assistance, adding to the confusion of policy content. The partner documents of

Denmark and Germany indicate the impact to children’s education and health, and protection.

For Denmark, the focus surrounds a holistic approach from partners to protection, referring to

the specific case of Save the Children protecting against the genital mutilation of girls, and

early marriages.427

For child-based policy formation, Belgium and Denmark both have strong

indications of child exploitation and abuse,428

with Belgium focussing on the prevention of

conflict-orientated exploitation scenarios, and instances of sexual exploitation. Denmark

states that in many regions, ‘trafficking, sexual exploitation and economic exploitation are

daily realities for children,’ 429

while highlighting risks surrounding conflict, poverty, health,

and child protection. As the sole Member State reflecting potential risks to children in its

DRR policy, the United Kingdom best reflects vulnerabilities in its 2006 DRR-centred policy,

where vulnerability, in general, is complemented by specific illustrations of risks to a child’s

development and health surrounding a disaster. Unfortunately, the 2011 thematic policy on

disaster resilience by the UK fails to recognise child vulnerabilities in depth, with a sole

reference to child vulnerability, exemplifying the need for states to mainstream child risks

throughout policy formation.

425

Represented in Appendix II as RO, 2010. 426

Represented in Appendix II as SE(C), 2010. 427

Represented in Appendix II as DK(C), 2011, 28. 428

Represented in Appendix II as BE(B) and DK(A). 429

Represented in Appendix II as DK(A), 9

147

Across the Member States, there is a strong level of acknowledgement of pre-existing

vulnerabilities and the risks children face in a humanitarian and development context. These

cover a range of risks from short to long-term issues, and from technical aspects post-disaster

such as the risk of not meeting the needs of children, to social issues of exploitation, abuse,

health, and education.

Lexis representing child rights

The following section looks at indications of EU and Member State action to uphold child

rights aligning to Articles 2, 3, 6, 12 of the UNCRC. Through lexical analysis, this section

reviews whether child rights are mainstreamed or isolated across EU and Member State

foreign policy mechanisms, in order to reduce child vulnerability. With a significant amount

of focus on the immediate and physical risks of children, corresponding to Article 6 on the

right to life, development, and survival, emphasis lies on the physical protection of children.

As such, the action-based lexis towards child protection in this section reflects the needs-

based approach of many of the EU and Member States’ policies.

The recognition of child protectionism as part of the internal policy formation of the EU has

now extended the acknowledgement of child rights as part of Community external action in

third countries. Yet the respect for the rights of children within external policy formation has

been a gradual process within the last decade, and varies across the different agencies.

Overall, representation of the UNCRC as the international basis for responsibilities of actors

to protection children and their rights, and child rights is minimal in the EU external action

policies analysed. Besides the child-centric policy documents included in this study, the only

EU policy to include the UNCRC was the ECHO policy aforementioned concerning ECHO

aid partnerships, where the acknowledgement of the Convention indicates the age of a child

as 18 years or less. 430

The policy document does not, however, reiterate the Convention’s

affirmation of the duties of countries, donors, and partners, nor does it affirm children as

rights bearers. Representation of child rights in EU external action has been essentially

achieved through the Commission Communication, “A Special Place for Children in EU

External Action,” and two supporting working documents in 2008. The policy package has

430

European Commission, Partnership with DG ECHO: Supporting Documents (Brussels: European

Commission, 2010), 13.

148

become fundamental in promoting a rights-based approach to children and the protection of

their rights in EU humanitarian action during times of crisis.431

According to the data

collation on lexical representation of children and the respective UNCRC rights, the adjoining

working document, ‘Children in Emergency and Crisis situations,’ presents itself as a general

outline of the dangers children are exposed to in crises situations, while also including

preventative measures to specific threats. This is a promising initiative to address the

vulnerability of children and risks they face, yet is not all-encompassing of the potential

forms of exploitation or trauma children can face after a natural or manmade disaster.

The Communication and working documents are the only external action policies considered

in this study to have explicit references of the core Articles of the UNCRC relative to

international assistance, while providing various actions towards respecting child rights in

external actions. The Communication itself affirms the responsibility of the EU and Member

States to international and regional agreements, while broadly stating the areas of EU external

policy where children and adolescents can participate, such as in trade policy, political

dialogue, development cooperation, and humanitarian aid.432

It cites the 2001 Commission

communication on respecting human rights and democracy in third countries, with reference

to a purely needs-based approach to emergency responses, ‘solely according to the victim’s

needs.’433

Moreover, in one instance protectionism and the protection of rights is considered

to be achieved through military intervention, or displacement:

“I mean, shelter you can provide shelter, and specifically in

such a way that caters to the specific needs of children, the

same you can do for women, that, I don’t have a problem

with. You just have to be very careful when you start bringing

in specific ... children have specific rights which we try to

protect but there is a point where you have to say, well if we

have to have guns, you know as a protection issue, then

431

European Commission, A Special Place for Children in EU External Action [SEC(2008)135],( Brussels:

European Commission, 2008). 432

Ibid, p. 7. 433

European Commission, The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third

countries [COM(2001)252], 13, as cited in European Commission, A Special Place for Children in EU External

Action [SEC(2008)135],( Brussels: European Commission, 2008), 6.

149

maybe it’s the wrong place where we’re setting this up,

because they’re not protected. It doesn’t matter what we do,

they’re not in security. So we better do this, we should be

doing this somewhere else.”434

These examples of physical vulnerabilities and immediate needs form a restricted view of

vulnerability, resulting in other risks, such as psychosocial risks, being disregarded. This is

mirrored by concrete forms of protectionism putting children at risk, In the case above,

military action, or the change of location of assistance requiring the displacement of children,

which can render children more vulnerable. In addition to the context of humanitarianism,

policies imply that human rights are to be addressed in later phases of development, rather

than the EU’s immediate assistance in a humanitarian context. But the classification of such

child risks as developmental or long-term issues, does not in fact go towards reducing child

vulnerability, and represent a blatant disregard for the required protection of children

surrounding a disaster.

The lexis analysis of child rights policies broadly outlined efforts from the EU to address

child rights, and yet despite this, all humanitarian assistance will only ‘contribute towards

respecting the rights of victims.’435

The use of the term ‘victims’ as the recipients of

assistance can promote an environment of victimhood, where those affected by disasters are

categorised into an oppressive sense where their capabilities following a disaster are not

considered. As Mercer et al suggest, participation with those at risk of disasters assists in the

empowerment of vulnerable groups.436

A narrow view of protection discounts preventative

measures such as participation in policy formation to ensure better protection. To achieve

effective DRR programming, participation in DRR decision-making must be based on

effective engagement of those at risk, to enable self-empowerment rather than mere

knowledge transfer.

434

Interview excerpt, ECHO Staff, 10/11/2010. 435

European Commission, The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third

countries [COM(2001)252], as cited in European Commission, A Special Place for Children in EU External

Action [SEC(2008)135],( Brussels: European Commission, 2008), page 6. 436

Mercer et al., “Reflections on use of participatory research for disaster risk reduction,” Area 40, no. 2 (2008):

181.

150

The following figure outlines the various types of action and protection mentioned in the

chosen EU external policies to look at whether this view of protectionism and action toward

reducing risk is consistent throughout EU external approaches.

Figure 4.5 Mentions of EU lexis towards child rights in policy formation in adherence

with UNCRC.

The Figure above represents the 11 external action policies that indicated specific actions

towards reducing the vulnerabilities of children in an external setting. These actions were

isolated to correspond with the relative Articles under the UNCRC. Action references to

children and child rights in EU DRR strategies are minimal. Not only are there no specific

mentions of child rights in any of the EU internal or external policies focussed on disaster risk

reduction, there are also no broad indications of upholding the UN Convention itself.

Regardless of the lack of recognition of child rights, there are some general references

towards children within the external DRR policies of the EU. The 2009 DRR Communication

highlights increased information dissemination through awareness-raising campaigns and

education for children.437

The 2011 implementation plan indicated cross-cutting issues of

gender, socio-economic vulnerability, environmental sustainability and vulnerable groups

were alluded to but not expanded on in any form. The 2011 plan was thus a broad adaption of

the 2009 Strategy, with improvements towards dialogue between actors, and a community-

based approach, yet was not inclusive enough to describe what risks of vulnerable groups

437

European Commission, EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries, (Brussels:

European Commission, 2009), 9.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2012 2010b 2003 2008a 2008b 2008c 2010 2011b 2011f 2012a

DEVCO DEVCO ECHO EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS EEAS

Article 2 Non discrimination

Article 3 Best Interests

Article 6 Right to life / surv / dev

Article 12 Participation

151

such as children, would be included.

This assists in preparing children and informing them of possible risks they may face. These

grassroots measures are vital to enhancing local ownership of disaster risk processes. The

strategy does not, however, indicate any protection measures for vulnerable groups, nor did it

include the participation of such groups in policy formation, which would enhance both

accountability and ownership.

To implement the EU’s holistic 2009 DRR strategy, the European Commission published a

working document in 2011 outlining the strategies towards reducing risks in third

countries.438

The document asserts it solely surrounds natural disasters and the policy does

not apply to conflict situations. As stated previously, many risks faced during and following a

natural or manmade disaster are parallel in both situations. Therefore, it could be more

efficient to have a comprehensive child-focussed DRR policy to cover both areas. While this

could cause institutional complications between DIPECHO and the EEAS, this could be a

joint document applicable to both mechanisms. Paradoxically, the only DRR-related policy,

which has multiple mentions of children, is the 2009 Communication on Disaster

Preparedness in the Pacific.439

Children are discussed not only as a vulnerable group, but as a

cross-cutting issue to be mainstreamed across Pacific DRR methodologies. This is promising

in ensuring measures of protecting children and their rights are addressed at the various levels

of governance, and across the different sectors. Information and education through awareness

campaigns targeted at children assist in their protection, through the implementation of

activities across the education system to assist in the creation of a ‘culture of prevention,’440

There is a particular focus on DRR child-centric activities appropriate to remote communities

within the Pacific.441

While there are many elements of effective child-centric DRR

programming cited, the policies would benefit from stronger acknowledgement of the

438


supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries 2011-2014, (Brussels: European Commission, 2011.) 439

European Commission, Commission Decision on the financing of disaster preparedness actions in the Pacific

from the general budget of the European Union, [ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/07000], (Brussels: European

Commission, 2009). 440

European Commission, Commission Decision on the financing of disaster preparedness actions in the Pacific

from the general budget of the European Union, [ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/07000], (Brussels: European

Commission, 2009), 6. 441

Ibid, 6.

152

participation in children in policy formation and implementation,442

as this would allow for

more effective vertical and horizontal mainstreaming of child rights to ensure effective DRM

governance.

The majority of indications of action in Figure 4.5 above within the policies analysed reside

under Article 6. Actions by the EU within its external policies represent a wide range of acts

in ensuring the protection of a child’s right to life, survival and development, as outlined in

this Article. As anticipated, the majority of the responses to child vulnerability through

external action in line with the UNCRC came from EEAS policy lexis, specifically the 2008

child policy package. The Communication itself surrounds long-term action towards children

in EU external action, such as their development and education.443

The working documents

go into more detail, with the Action Plan on child rights promoting long-term social issues of

abuse and exploitation and cross-cutting themes including gender mainstreaming throughout

all EU external actions.444

The Working Document on Children in Emergencies and Crisis

Situations describes actions to reduce immediate vulnerabilities following a disaster such as

family reunification and protection concerns. These short-term concerns in the aftermath of a

disaster are coupled with longer-term risks including disease and ill health, exploitation and

abuse, education and development. Not only are actions towards technical and social risks

recognised, the working document also promotes preventative measures such as awareness-

raising activities to highlight the risks children may face surrounding a disaster. Some of

these instances could be considered an overlap with Article 2, representing the responsibilities

and strategies of the EU, its Member States and implementing partners to ensure the best

interests of the child, as exemplified by the cases of exploitation and abuse, family

reunification, violence, and general protection against risks to a child’s development.

Through the analysis of ECHO lexis, the 2010 partner document comprises the sole ECHO

action toward child risks. This centres on awareness-raising, and action to address short and

long-term social concerns. The types of child-centric actions included in the FPA supporting

442

Mercer et al. “Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities,” Environmental Hazards 11,

no. 2 (2012):79. 443

European Commission, A Special Place for Children in EU External Action [SEC(2008)135],( Brussels:


European Commission, The European Union’s Action Plan on Children’s Rights in External Action,

(Brussels: European Commission, 2008).

153

documents include child friendly spaces, preventative measures to family separation, birth

certificate registrations, foster care, family tracing, and education and recreational activities.

Long-term abuse and exploitation risks are reduced through preventative training and

education of children to avoid recruitment of demobilised children as child soldiers, whilst

the certification of suppliers partnering with EU implementing organisations ensures against

child labour. The inclusion of action to deal with social risks is somewhat unexpected from

the humanitarian arm, which embodies a staunch stance on managing immediate, technical

needs, rather than social risks. If these actions are included in the obligations of implementing

partners, it would be beneficial to mainstream these actions throughout each of ECHO’s

humanitarian policy documents, to ensure a cohesive approach within humanitarian action by

the EU and its Member States. This juncture between Articles and action can pose a problem

in meeting the obligations of parties to reduce the risks posed to a child and their rights, and

consequently abide by the Convention as a whole. The recognition of the need to increase

child agency in humanitarian policy formation was evident in the 2008 action plan towards

children in external action. This is a encouraging in the consequent empowerment of children

to voice their vulnerabilities and capabilities. This recognition is not far-reaching across

external policies, but remains situated within child-centric policy formation or the

overarching human rights legislation.

For DEVCO, the 2005 Consensus for Development under DEVCO highlights actions to

manage long-term risks of exploitation and abuse, such as trafficking and child labour,

achieved through dialogue with local partners, and implemented through regional and country

strategy papers.445

The 2012 DEVCO Communication additionally highlights the slow onset

risks to a child’s development, particularly health, income, education and care, which can be

addressed through effective social protection strategies. Equal and universal access to social

protection through the lifecycle and for the most vulnerable must be intrinsic to policy

dialogues with partner governments.446

In addition, the Communication asserts the EU can

‘up-scale’ assistance to develop systems when partner countries face a disaster, in order to

assist quick economic and social recovery for affected populations, and the most vulnerable,

445

European Commission, The European Consensus on Development [2006/C 46/01], (Brussels: Official

Journal of the European Union, 2005). 446

European Commission, Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation [COM(2012)446],

(Brussels: European Commission, 2012).

154

in the early phases of a disaster.447

This is important to ensure action towards the social

vulnerabilities children can face following a disaster, when infrastructural and community

systems are in chaos. In spite of this, it seems to be a retrospective course of action, which

could be better implemented as preventative risk management prior to a crisis. A

comprehensive social protection system, which can withstand the disaster cycle, would be

more effective than the rapid establishment of a system in the immediate aftermath, which

could have potential loopholes, and ultimately lead to increased vulnerability. Moreover, as

this Communication is under the Commission development arm, rather than its humanitarian

arm, this measure runs the risk of not being realised until later phases of reconstruction,

which can increase levels of vulnerability, rather than in the immediate phase of disaster. The

recognition of child rights throughout policy formation, to cover risks to children across the

disaster cycle, is also a concern for Member States, where divergences in the approaches to

child rights can lead to ineffective harmonisation of policies.

Figure 4.6 Mentions of Member state lexis towards child rights in policy formation in

adherence with UNCRC

According to the Member State lexical analysis depicted in Figure 4.6, while children are

present within the majority of the policies, there is an extremely low count of references to

action towards meeting the all obligations of the UNCRC, besides examples corresponding to

Article 6. As such, Member State implementation of the Convention in its foreign policy runs

parallel to the EU where action to ensuring a child’s right to life, survival and development is

447

European Commission, Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation [COM(2012)446],

(Brussels: European Commission, 2012), 10.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Be

lgiu

m (

b)

Cyp

rus

De

nm

ark

(a)

De

nm

ark

(c)

Esto

nia

Fin

lan

d (

a)

Fran

ce (a

)

Fran

ce (b

)

Ge

rman

y (a

)

Ge

rman

y (d

)

Hu

nga

ry

Ire

lan

d (a

)

Ire

lan

d (b

)

Ital

y

Mal

ta

Ne

the

rlan

ds

(a)

Ne

the

rlan

ds

(b)

Po

rtu

gal (

a)

Po

rtu

gal (

b)

Ro

man

ia

Slo

vaki

a

Slo

ven

ia

Spai

n

Swe

de

n (a

)

Un

ite

d K

ingd

om

(b

)

Article 2 Non discrimination

Article 3 Best Interests

Article 6 Right to life / surv / dev

Article 12 Participation

155

easier to be implemented than the other core Articles. This may be explained by cultural

differences between donor & partner countries.448

Notions of discrimination, what is

considered to be best interests of a child and ensuring children participate in the decision-

making process could be considered by donors as problematic in the dialogue and

implementation of strategies in third countries, despite the widespread recognition of these

rights of children. Despite having a separate DRR document, there are minimal strategies

included centred on children and child vulnerability, in order to reduce the risks of children

through preventative measures. Indeed, some of the Member States without a DRR policy had

more references to children and comprehensive strategies to reduce the risks of children

through various actions in judicial processes, policy formation, partner programmes and

dialogue, and preventative activities across the disaster cycle. As such, one can question the

need for a separate DRR policy document, if the overarching policy is comprehensive of

actions to reduce child vulnerability and ensure the protection of children and their rights.

For EU Member State DRR policy formation, Germany’s 2010 DRR policy highlights social

elements of a society, including the legal backdrop and the level of respect for human rights,

are highlighted as determining a community’s level of vulnerability.449

Children are also

included as aspects of a community’s vulnerability. While not providing specific actions to

reducing social vulnerability, or that of children, the policy document identifies the role of

decentralisation and education as important aspects towards mainstreaming DRR.450

The

DRR policy of Finland,451

with quite a recent publication in 2011 has no recognition of rights,

social vulnerabilities or marginalised groups in its ‘checklist’ to implementing DRR, but

remains focused on the technical, infrastructural aspects of disaster risk management. This is

somewhat surprising considering the increased global recognition of societal factors as

influential to disaster risk and the importance of including social aspects in DRR policy and

subsequent programming. The two DRR documents produced by the Department for

International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom represent two different attitudes

towards needs and rights in DRR strategies. The basis of the strategy papers shifts from high

448

Mercer et al. “Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities,” Environmental Hazards 11,

no. 2 (2012):79. 449

German Development Cooperation, Disaster Risk Management, (Bonn: Schoemer Gruppe, 2010), 9. 450

German Development Cooperation, Disaster Risk Management, (Bonn: Schoemer Gruppe, 2010), 9. 451

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Checklist on DRR issues, (Helsinki: FORMIN, 2011).

156

references to needs in the 2006 policy, focused on the employ of DRR to assist in poverty

reduction, to the recognition, albeit minimal, of rights in the 2010 DRR document centred on

the concept of resilience. Human rights and the rule of law are viewed as an influential factor

to risk, where political structures can be put under stress, and consequently more at risk in the

context of a disaster.452

The policy does not however allude to measures to address human

rights abuses within the disaster cycle through DRR programming. Despite no recognition of

child rights or the UNCRC, the DFID 2006 DRR policy were the only of the four policies to

have any significant references to children, and cites preventative action towards child

vulnerability through educational programmes.

Member State action towards the non-discrimination of children is minimal. Thanks to a new

legal basis for humanitarian aid, however, Spain is able to take legal action against cases of

discrimination in humanitarian aid. A prosecutorial methodology towards ensuring child

rights in a disaster context, provoked by an event taking place, when combined with

preventative measures to reduce the risk of discrimination occurring, and protection across

the disaster cycle, can allow for a holistic approach to the respect of child rights. Indeed,

Spain sees education as crucial to the prevention of non-discrimination, and supports

activities to combat the discrimination of children, particularly towards child exploitation and

abuse, promoting psycho-social support, foster care, and adoption programmes.453

To

mainstream non-discrimination in partner country legislation, Denmark assists in the

formation of National Plans of Action, in addition to cross-sectoral non-discrimination

activities for both male and female children, allowing for vertical action towards child rights

at the different levels of governance and horizontal implementation within the various

divisions of governance.

The data analysis illustrated Malta as the sole Member State conscious of the best interests of

the child. Malta acceded to the EU in 2004, and in the following few years, embarked upon

its role as a donor-country.454

Malta’s promotes the rights of children through the engagement

452

DFID, Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper, (London: DFID, 2011), 8. 453

El Consejo de ministros, Plan Director de la Cooperación Espanola 2009-2012 (Madrid: Consejo de

ministros, 2009). 454

European Commission, “Malta – Donor Profile”, http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-

policies/financing_for_development/documents/malta-donor-profile.pdf, Accessed: 18 October 2013.

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/documents/malta-donor-profile.pdf


157

with child-focussed partner organisations and child-centric initiatives, as actions towards

upholding the best interests of the child, in support of Article 2.455

The common acknowledgment of Article 6 of the UNCRC on the child’s right to life,

survival, and development is apparent in the inclusion of some form of child-centred action

towards this Article displayed by 18 of the 27 Member States included in the study. For the

majority, this represents measures to address the longer-term aspects of child development as

negative occurrences following a disaster, such as health issues, education, and forms of

abuse and exploitation. However, the Netherlands focuses on addressing the immediate needs

of children, through the employ of needs assessments in its humanitarian aid policy. Despite

this technical approach to risk management, the human rights foreign policy document of the

Netherlands suggests long-term, socially-orientated risks are recognised through mechanisms

to protect against human rights abuses, and several forms of exploitation. Some Member

States focussed on the social aspects of disasters in their thematic policy documents.

Denmark, which continued its comprehensive rights-based approach to policy formation in

their child-focussed document, referred to measures towards both immediate and slow-onset

risks, and technical and social issues. The needs and rights of children are reinforced through

programmes towards child protection, such as education, awareness raising, reintegration of

child soldiers, and ensuring such activities are included in the National Action Plans of

partners. In addition, the Danish policy for partner agencies on the monitoring of cross-

cutting issues suggests preventative measures such as capacity building and governance

structures in ensuring protection against child rights abuses in humanitarian situations.

Several Member States recognise the importance of participation of citizens, particularly

those with particular needs or vulnerabilities, in policy formation. Along with participatory

actions from Belgium and Denmark in their child-focussed policies, Spain identifies its role

as the primary agent for the protection, promotion, and participation of children through an

integrated perspective based on social cohesion. 456

Participation is reinforced through the

establishment of participatory channels for young people and their families, which in addition

455

Government of Malta, An Overseas Development Policy and a Framework for Humanitarian assistance for

Malta (Government of Malta, 2007), Clause 3.10.4. 456


ministros, 2009), 165.

158

to greater understanding of their vulnerabilities and capabilities, can promote the engagement

of youth as active citizens.457

Romania demonstrates its capacity as a donor and recognition

of the importance of youth engagement through the funding of project-based civic education

and community participation.458


Through lexical content of policy formation, this chapter has shown the differentiation

between EU Commission mechanisms, and EU Member States in the approaches and

measures towards acknowledging children and child rights through lexical references in

policy formation. This chapter has indicated a comprehensive view of risks faced by children,

both in the short and long-term, needs to be achieved in policy formation. The resulting

analysis indicated the need for the EU and Member States policies to adopt a stronger focus

on reducing risks by upholding the rights of children, through the employ of rights-based

lexis to reveal rights-based DRR praxis, specific to the Articles of the UNCRC. The

interconnectivity of risk and rights in lexis, through the embodiment of a rights-based

approach, generates a basis of applying human security in policy formation.

To review the European Community’s approach to risk, and establish how the EU and its

Member States address child rights in DRR programming overseas, this chapter reviewed the

internal policies which influence the formation of an effective European DRR strategy, both

common and those of the Member States. The unique institutional structure of the

Community has significant effects on the legislative and executive decision-making of the EU

towards DRR in third countries. The lack of cohesion in policy formation, and disparities of

lexis across the institutions highlights the potential need to better compartmentalise DRR

within its external institutions, and review child lexis surrounding the risks children face, to

uphold child rights under its international obligations. Not harmonising disaster terminology

across the institutions of the EU is counter-productive. As highlighted through the human

security framework, lexis in policy formation measures in core external action policies not

only channel the values of the EU, but lexical disparity undermines the position of the EU. It

457


ministros, 2009), 165. 458

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, New donors can make a difference! (Bucharest: Development

Assistance Unit, 2010), 12.

159

can cause difficulties for not only those acting within the Commission, but for the Parliament,

and Member States who are in the process of implementing their own DRR policies.

Disparate views amongst the EU and Member States regarding holistic policy formation,

inclusive of human rights, or separate human rights and DRR policies, beg the question - is it

important to have a separate child-centric policy formation to ensure action to address child

vulnerability? Or does it suffice to incorporate action into overarching aid policies, but run

the risk of marginalising children? According to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Danida, in their Guidelines on Children in Danish Development Cooperation, it is more

efficient to address the specific rights and needs of children when targeted in a separate policy

document, than if they are embedded within overarching policies. 459

Holistic foreign policies

are often only targeted at adults, and do not recognise specific vulnerabilities of societal

groups.

In addition, choices of lexis and policy formation act as precursors towards the obligations of

international actors, and what will eventuate in humanitarian and development assistance in

partner countries. For the EU, action-based lexis to reduce child risks in external action

strategies focuses on assisting partner countries in meeting their obligations towards child

protection and child rights, and the presence of child rights in bilateral and regional dialogue.

However, one could question the EU’s role in imparting assistance for the portrayal of child

rights in partner countries’ policy formation, considering the lack of presence of children and

their rights in the EU’s own policy formation. This is particularly in the case of DRR and

DRR implementation strategies. Perhaps, for the EU it is a case of reduced accountability and

transparency due to the overlap of responsibilities of its institutions and external action

mechanisms, as this chapter has revealed. Human rights, are representative of one of the EU’s

core principles, and consequently embody Member States’ internal obligations to uphold

human rights in policy formation.460

As donors, the EU and Member States must uphold

human rights as part of their international obligations to protect those at risk, particularly

459

Danida, Children and Young People in Danish Development Cooperation – Guidelines, (Copenhagen:

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005), 13. 460

Becker et al., “Human Rights in EU Law,” Human Rights Law, eds. Brid Moriarty and Eva Messa, (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2012), 174

160

through strengthening partnerships.461

For some partners, both governmental and non-

governmental entities, human rights can be a sensitive issue, and therefore often can be

sidelined for other more pressing economic, political, and environmental priorities. It is then a

question of how the EU translates human rights from a fundamental principle and upholds its

international obligations, in its practical applications of lexis in policy formation to human

rights praxis in external action.

There is consequently a direct correlation between lexis in policy formation and the

implementation channels, through the partnerships the EU holds with actors external to the

EU active within Europe, in other regions, or in-country. However, the effectiveness of the

translation from policy to praxis is conditional on the subsequent evaluation, from within the

EU, and from partners, of policies and institutional structures, to ensure it upholds its

obligations.462

More importantly, policy evaluation can confirm if, in reality, the actions

stated in policies are realised in making a difference to address the vulnerability of children

throughout the disaster cycle, whether through effective preventative or protective DRR

measures. The next chapters analyse measures of praxis at an institutional level, and local

level, to review the second component of the lexis-praxis methodology of the human security

model. They examine whether overarching child rights and specific measures of child

protection are more effectively implemented by way of mainstreaming across policy and

praxis, or specific identification of child risk and child protection in praxis mechanisms.

461


1 (2001): 22-23. 462


2013), 48.

161

CHAPTER V

EU INSTITUTIONALISATION & PARTNER DIALOGUE

FOR DRR IMPLEMENTATION

______________________________________

5.1 INTRODUCTION

From EU and European Member State DRR lexis in DRR policy formation in the previous

chapter, this chapter reviews various aspects of EU and Member State praxis in the

implementation of DRR. Praxis as part of a rights-based approach centres on accountability

and transparency in governance, and makes use of multilateral, regional and local

implementation channels, in order to reduce vulnerability and ensure rights are upheld. This

chapter uses the model of human security and a rights-based approach to review the EU-

partner relationship in the implementation of child-centric DRR projects. To review EU DRR

praxis through the rights-based impact assessments,463

lexical data analysis from policy

profiling in Chapter III shifts to in-depth data analysis of the functional, fiscal, rights and

child protection aspects of EU partnerships in order to measure the effectiveness of

implementing DRR. In doing so, this analysis reviews whether EU praxis reflects its

responsibilities to uphold rights as part of its external action.

This chapter firstly examines the EU’s infrastructural basis for implementing DRR, and

reviews the EU’s channels for financing DRR programming. Through policy profiling as part

of the human rights impact assessments for this research, this chapter identifies the

ramifications of the decision by the EU to administer DRR through the European

Commission’s humanitarian arm, ECHO, rather than through DG DEVCO. The analysis of

the EU’s institutional approach to DRR programming and funding mechanisms leads to a

463

The data components of the rights based impact assessments are outlined in Appendix II

162

review of the FPA system, and policy decisions for European FPA agency selection. This is

undertaken to reveal trends in the EU’s support for European agency DRR programming, in

particular child-centric DRR partners.

The second level of the human rights impact assessments applicable to this chapter surrounds

analysis of EU-financed DRR programming, evaluating the themes of child risks and child

protection in DRR programming. Thematic analysis allows for an enhanced understanding of

DRR implementation, and how FPA partners undertake child-centric DRR programming in

conjunction with humanitarian or development assistance activities.464

The approach of DRR

programming through FPA partners denotes the alignment of DRR activities with the EU’s

humanitarian or development Directorate General, and the effectiveness of EU channels in

facilitating partnerships between the EU and agencies undertaking DRR. Child-centred DRR

projects are then isolated into geographic and partner trends to review the financial assistance

afforded to certain countries and partners for DRR programming. Subsequently, fiscal and

thematic trends on EU funding demonstrate whether partner activities enhance child

protection surrounding disasters.

As the third tier of the rights-based impact assessments, data from interviews with European

Commission staff at a European and local level, in addition to European partner agencies who

have applied for and / or undertaken EU-financed humanitarian, development or DRR

projects. The disclosure of information through these interviews regarding EU processes at an

institutional level, assists in evaluating the EU’s effectiveness in DRR programming. As part

of a rights-based approach to DRR programming, this centres on accountability and

transparency throughout the DRR project cycle, to cover risks throughout the disaster cycle,

and consequently uphold the rights of those at risk. Funding proposals, assessments,

monitoring and evaluation of project deliverables, ECHO’s reporting requirements of partners

and the reflection and dissemination of project outcomes are reviewed to assess whether the

464

To review the thematic trends of the FPA partners, website content of the partners alongside the pairing of

data collated from the GLIDE database and Financial Tracking Service, administered by the Asia Disaster

Reduction Centre, and the UN Humanitarian Office, OCHA respectively. This universal approach filtered to

information published on the websites of FPA partners focussed on children, in addition to data associated with

funding from the EU agencies to provide assistance in the Asia Pacific. The collation of data from the 191 FPA

partners of 2011464

generated activities of 24 FPA partners focussed on child vulnerability in their projects,

pertaining to disasters and general development.

163

EU’s support for DRR programming is accountable and transparent, and effective in the

implementation of its funded projects. Equally important are the indications of protection and

empowerment in the implementation of EU-financed projects to future-proof against child

vulnerability. This evidence base reveals the defence of, or barriers to effective EU DRR

partnerships and the implementation of EU-funded DRR programming. This provides a

foundation of EU praxis at an institutional level to review the localisation of EU praxis within

the Asia Pacific in Chapter VI.

5.2 TRENDS OF EU PARTNERSHIPS IN DRR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

There is a general disregard by states to translate their obligations towards human rights

through the lexis indicated within foreign policy into the implementation of human rights into

external praxis. In the disaster context, there can often be a focus from donors on immediate

responses when providing assistance, but equally, if not more important, is ensuring external

activities uphold the rights of those at risk, as the foundation for humanitarianism. Often the

two approaches can be at loggerheads for international actors such as the EU. Yet as Sen

states, duty bearers have a responsibility to perceive human rights as freedoms. 465

Internal

and external praxis must ‘safeguard and expand these freedoms.’466

EU partnerships must

maximise on existing implementation channels, through effective governance, and

engagement with partners - a solution often undervalued at the executive level.467

Reflection on the partnerships between the EU and its partners assists in understanding the

decisions of the EU in financing DRR programming, and whether it upholds its

responsibilities to protect children and child rights, as part of its internal and international

obligations. Analysis of partnerships at a European level reflects not only the translation of

the EU’s principles in praxis, but measures the effectiveness of EU partnerships in the

filtration of the protection of children and child rights through to the local level, in the

subsequent chapter.

465



Stephan Keukeleire and Jennifer MacNaughtan, The Foreign policy of the European Union (New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 251

164

As previously stated to protect children throughout the disaster cycle, a rights-based approach

to DRR promotes the recognition of social vulnerabilities throughout the disaster cycle, with

the focus on reducing immediate and slow onset risks to children. Investigations into child-

focussed DRR projects identifies whether there has been an increased recognition of risks to

children, and the translation from interrelated lexis in policy documents explored in Chapter

III to DRR programming, in order to reduce such risks. There is contention over whether to

mainstream child protection into holistic DRR programmes, but in doing so, this potentially

marginalises children and the risks they face. Alternatively, whether it may be more effective

to have specific child-centric projects focussed on the child resilience but can potentially

disengage children from the whole community approach to DRR. Child-centric DRR projects

in particular are an area which lack implementation. Previously this was attributed to the lack

of evidence base in the documentation of the circumstances children are in surrounding a

disaster, and inadequate child agency in policy formation and disaster mitigation. As Cutter

suggested in 1995:

“...children currently bear a disproportionate burden of

environmental degradation in both the developed and

developing countries yet have restricted abilities to adjust to

or mitigate the consequences of these deteriorating

environmental conditions. As the driving forces behind

environmental change become better documented, more

reliable data on the differential impacts on women and

children will be available. When we can adequately document

impacts, then we can address likely individual and societal

adjustment strategies for these sub-populations, strategies that

will no longer marginalize women and children, placing them

in the terra incognita of forgotten casualties.”468

The increase in recognition of the vulnerabilities and capacities of children surrounding

natural disasters, in the field of DRR since this statement from Cutter is limited but important

468

Susan L Cutter, "The Forgotten Casualties: Women, Children, and Environmental Change," Global

Environmental Change 5, no. 3 (1995): 194.

165

in the role children play in implementing DRR at a local level. The reference to various

societal factions including children, and the identification of risks they face, is not only reliant

on recognition of risks in policy and programming in order to reduce marginalisation, but

requires the additional level of empowerment, through the engagement of individuals and

groups in decision-making.469

Participation in the implementation of programming is also

important to assist in identifying specific risks according to various vulnerabilities, and

identify their capabilities throughout the disaster cycle.

The primary objective of the investigations into EU FPA partners was to review ECHO

decision-making towards European partners. In turn, if priority was given to large

organisations or certain Member States, and the thematic features of the projects undertaken.

In doing so, trends in EU FPA partnerships reveal whether there is a translation of the EU’s

approach in lexis to effective DRR praxis in protecting children and child rights. An initial

holistic approach to EU partnerships in the Asia Pacific therefore involved scoping of the

FPA partners.

EU FPA partner trends

Data analysis of the FPA partnership agreements demonstrated a concentration of FPA

partnership agreements with organisations located in large Member States. As the country

with the highest number of organisations holding FPAs with the EU, the UK positions itself

well above the other states, holding 41 agreements in 2011. This is somewhat surprising

given the UK is not considered to be a Member State which is fervently dedicated to

European integration, and prefers on many occasions to retain its sovereign rule, particularly

surrounding foreign policy and engagements overseas. Besides the UK, countries with

numerous organisations holding partnership agreements with the EU represent the ‘old’

Member States, which formed the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s, as the

establishing supranational system of the European Union. France, Italy, and Germany along

with the Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg hold nearly half of the partnerships, despite

the significantly low count of Luxembourg. In tandem with funding organisations located

within Member States, the EU also holds partnerships with organisations residing in

469

Martha C. Nussbaum, Creating Capabilities, (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,

2011), 120.

166

European countries, which do not form part of the Community, such as Switzerland. The

extension of international assistance provided by the EU through non-Member State

European countries is positive in supporting the impartiality clause, which underpins

European humanitarian assistance. The overall distribution levels of FPA partners is mirrored

by the geographic locations of child-centric organisations. The majority of child focused

humanitarian organisations concentrated in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, and the

Netherlands, which is consistent with the overall distribution of FPAs, but the number of

child-centric organisations, are minimal.

There is also limited scope of the EU partnering with European organisations with restricted

capacity to implement comprehensive aid programming. Financial data accumulated until

2011,470

illustrated that significant amounts of EU funding was received from partners located

in the following Member States: Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Austria. These

international organisations have the capacity to reach countries in the Asia Pacific, despite

their distance from Europe. Indeed, the positive comments from both European and in-

country FPA partners of ECHO in Figure 2.3 of Chapter II, as flexible and accommodating

came from representatives of large international organisations, which had a long-standing

relationship with ECHO and the capacity to generate the project proposals, fulfil the

objectives, and produce the deliverables. As an ECHO representative remarked:

“If we took any NGO that comes through the door, you know,

you would have the problem of do they have qualified staff,

do they know what they’re doing, do they have access, do

they have infrastructure, can they report back to us (...)”471

In addition to the frequent selection of organisations with the capacity and resources, there is

also a concentration on those organisations from the large or old Member States formerly

listed. This domination of organisations from the majority of the founding Member States, as

the most active goes against the EU rhetoric present in the policy documents, where the EU

470

From both the FTS system and FPA partner dataset. 471

Interview excerpt, ECHO Information Officer, 25/02/2011.

167

promotes a harmonised approach to aid,472

when in reality it is those which the countries have

the capacity and the mandate to support large organisations becoming EU FPA partners. As

Mahoney and Beckstrand state, organisations favoured by the EU represent those with a

recognised capacity to produce results.473

Partner organisations from recently acceded, or

smaller Member States may be less active in the Asia Pacific as they have do not have the

capacity to promote activity in the Asia Pacific, and their strategies focus instead on

neighbouring regions in need such as Africa or Eastern Europe.

Data analysis reveals that there is limited recognition of organisations involved in protecting

children surrounding disasters and general development. From the 188 FPA partners, 24

implemented solely child-centric activities. Of the 484 projects logged, 100 were from the 24

child-centric FPA partners. According to the information on the websites of the 24 child-

centric FPA partners,474

the projects implemented vary in the risks that they covered, with a

number of projects consisting of several different activities. FPA partners solely

implementing projects surrounding the vulnerability of children represent just 12% of all

partnerships held with European partners, excluding international organisations. These

statistics demonstrate the low representation of partnerships held between the EU and child-

centric organisations, which administer DRR programming, and which promote a holistic

approach to child risks and upholding child rights. Consequently, the limited responses of the

EU to translate child rights from overarching policy lexis leads to questions over child-related

praxis in programming at a local level in order to respond to its responsibilities of protecting

children and their rights. A review of the representation of FPA agencies in the Global

Financial Tracking Service for humanitarian and development aid, confirmed that of the 24

child-centric FPA partners, only 10 of 101 agencies featured in the Asia Pacific disaster

funding received from EU agencies. The projects in the Asia Pacific have been undertaken by

mainly large international organisations, with the activities surrounding mainly immediate

assistance and reconstruction, even general development such as wells. Only one of the

472

Christine Mahoney and Michael J Beckstrand, “Following the Money: European Union Funding of Civil

Society Organisations,” Journal of Common Market Studies 49, no. 6 (2011): 1339-1361. 473

Ibid, 1358. 474

Data analysis of project implementation is dependent on regular updating by the partner organisations of the

information on their websites. Often information available surround finished projects, rather than continuing or

future projects. As such, the information visible on their websites may not fully reflect the levels of activity by

organisations.

168

projects contained child protection, education, and health, along with child protection spaces

and training for internally displaced children in Timor Leste, surrounding civil unrest. DG

DEVCO’s funding mechanism, EuropeAid is also acknowledged in one instance where

Enfants du Monde administered development assistance to assist children with disabilities in

Vietnam to improve standards of education and health. This minimal recognition of EU

funding on the partner websites does not reflect reality, according to the Financial Tracking

Service, where funding from the European Commission agencies financing these major

European humanitarian organisations to provide assistance is much higher.

FPA activity trends

The activities of the agencies depicted on the websites have been analysed to review the

thematic foundations of the projects carried out by these organisations, according to the major

themes of this research and underlying aspects of the human security model for DRR. That is,

the concentration on the provision of immediate assistance, specific recognition of DRR,

social vulnerability, child rights, and child protection – either immediate or long term. Of the

roughly two hundred European organisations holding FPAs with the EU, none are DRR

focussed and 22 carry out such activities. Overt mentions of DRR in project descriptions

correspond to long term assistance, and aid towards education; community reconstruction;

disaster preparedness – the only instance of DRR featuring ECHO funding on Plan UK’s

website; and, finally, one case of strengthened child-led DRR, following Cyclone Sidr in

Bangladesh. While these were not promoted as DRR explicitly, cases of activities

surrounding social vulnerabilities and long term child protection issues represent a holistic

approach to risk reduction, as supported by a rights-based approach. Particularly as they were

promoted alongside activities of general development, thus bridging the gap between

humanitarian and development assistance. While these were not promoted as DRR explicitly,

the cases of activities surrounding social vulnerabilities and long term child protection issues

represent both corrective and prospective risk reduction, particularly as they were promoted

alongside activities of general development.

The child-centric FPA partner activities, for the most part, concern general humanitarian

assistance, applicable to all affected populations. The assistance provided through the projects

tends to the immediate needs of all disaster victims, such as aid kits, essential items and the

169

provision of food, shelter and water. While several of the partners mentioned reconstruction,

this could be considered as short term and not necessarily long term developmental

assistance. In a positive turn, there were several projects stressing social issues which

correspond to various phases of the disaster cycle, including support against slow onset risks,

such as the provision of psychosocial help, improved education, support for abuse victims,

training for teachers, and the social integration of children.

There is a significant lack of representation of child rights in the FPA partner activities. FPA

partners only mentioned child rights twice in their projects, both in the context of increased

awareness and general development. World Vision promoted child rights as part of their

activities surrounding both immediate aid and reconstruction, particularly through increased

awareness of rights of disabled children following the 2004 Tsunami. Child rights were also

emphasised by Care Austria alongside general development and peace building in East

Timor. A third of the activities undertaken in the projects promoted child protection measures

corresponding to immediate risks, or the response phase of a disaster, such as reunification of

families, child friendly spaces, and psychological assistance in the aftermath of a disaster.

Child protection measures aligned with long-term development of the reconstruction of

communities included the rebuilding of schools, psychosocial awareness and education of

children and teachers, the creation of a helpline and the construction of orphanages.

The activities depicted on the FTS matched against natural disasters in the Asia Pacific,

support the trends depicted on the websites of the FPA partners. Of the 38 instances of

projects by the 10 child-focussed partners funded by the EU, which are active under the FTS,

the majority surrounds immediate aid, with minimal activities towards DRR or children, let

alone child-centric DRR. Despite being administered by child-focussed agencies, such as Plan

International and Enfants du Monde, there is an insignificant amount of activities, explicitly

classed as representing child protection. It is unknown whether the development aid activities

indicated were child-centric, as the project narratives were not as descriptive as the detail

given on the websites. The long-term child protection measures surrounding health matters or

development activities for displaced children could double as DRR activities, similar to those

depicted above.

170

The narrow review of the child-centric FPA partner activities demonstrates that despite the

EU external action policies promoting a rights-based approach to aid, it is clear that the

activities funded centre frequently on technical issues in humanitarian assistance. Examples

of these technical aspects of natural disasters surround the immediate provision of food, and

general humanitarian assistance, namely food, shelter, and water. Similarly, for development

assistance, child protection in a development setting is successive to issues of fishing

rehabilitation, health, water and sanitation. Similar to the trends of the FPA websites, there

are also cases of assistance to manmade disasters, primarily Myanmar and Timor Leste.

Indeed, the majority of cases reflecting child protection on the FTS data for FPA partners,

surround manmade disasters, where child protection centres have been established or there

was all-purpose protection for internally displaced children affected by conflict.

As aforementioned, there can also be overlap in the institutional accountability towards risks

in natural and manmade disaster risks. EU institutional concerns extend to the relationship

between activities undertaken by ECHO and the EEAS.475

As Bindi and Angelescu suggest,

tensions between EU foreign policy mechanisms continue to be at odds, even following the

adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which aimed at streamlining EU external action.476

Through

the European Consensus for Humanitarian Aid,477

ECHO does provide assistance for both

natural and manmade disasters, but DIPECHO firmly provides funding to prepare for the

response of natural disasters only. The duality of risks relating to natural and conflict as a

manmade disaster is often disregarded in discussions surrounding DRR, 478

particularly in EU

policy documents. The difficulty being that the involvement of the EU in crisis management

can affect ECHO’s activities and underlying mandate of respecting humanitarian principles:

“Usually it works, I mean there are always situations where

humanitarian principles are being compromised, particularly

by difficult regimes, difficult governments, we’ve seen that in

475


Macmillan, 2012). 476

Federiga Bindi, and Irina Angelescu, “The Open Question of an EU Foreign Policy,” The Foreign Policy of

the European Union, (Washington DC., Brookings Institute Press, 2012), 330. 477

European Commission, European Consensus for Humanitarian Aid, (Brussels: European Commission,

2007). 478

Ben Wisner, “Violent conflict, natural hazards, and disaster,” The Routledge Handbook on R2P, eds. W Andy

Knight and Frazer Egerton. (London; New York: Routledge, 2012), 71-81.

171

Sri Lanka, we are seeing that in Myanmar, a very prominent

case...”479

The recognition of the overlap of risk surrounding disasters, as exemplified by both

practitioners and EU FPA partners can assist in streamlining assistance to recipient

countries, and more importantly assist in the protection of children and increased awareness

of the risks they face. One interview respondent considered the duality of risks to be an issue

amplified by institutional barriers:

“ I don’t think anyone’s dealing with that very well...Outside

food security in Africa, where people are used to chronic

crisis, where you need to have a certain flexibility between

doing developmental work and responding to, let’s say

stressors, I don’ t think the system as a whole is structured

that way – it’s still structured into relief and development.

Within development, it’s structured into sectors – even

getting sectors to talk to each other is a bit of an effort. So

that relief-development divide just doesn’t work. They’ve

tried to make you work around reconstruction and

recovery...” 480

One other interview participant, working for an international organisation, which held an FPA

with the EU supported this implementation barrier, stating that the institutional structure,

“affected the interface between conflict prevention and DRR programming.”481

Yet according

to the FPA partner websites, there were several projects undertaken by the FPA partners in

response to manmade disasters, namely conflict situations around the Asia Pacific, in addition

to instances where projects incorporated activities in response to both natural and manmade

disasters affecting the recipient countries. Some of the DRR projects explicitly refer to the

reduction of risks associated with both conflict and natural disasters, while others include

activities representing DRR in the sense they reduce the risks surrounding the hazards in

479

Interview excerpt , ECHO Staff, 10/11/2010. 480

Interview excerpt, 12/09/2012. 481

Interview excerpt, UNICEF, 28/08/2012.

172

question. In one project in Indonesia, risks to children surrounding ongoing conflict aligned

with risks associated with the 2004 tsunami, requiring the construction of an orphanage, for

example. In another Indonesian example, schooling and psychosocial awareness for teachers

assists in reducing the risks to children surrounding armed conflict and natural disasters.

Vulnerabilities surrounding armed conflict and Typhoon Lekima in Vietnam resulted in

assistance to disabled children, and increased education surrounding. As such, there are

opportunities to link manmade and natural disaster programming for a holistic approach to

reducing the risks of children. While there is the mandate for these types of DRR projects, the

institutionalisation of DRR at an EU level still requires streamlining, for effective

implementation. Alongside the institutional barriers to effective DRR implementation, there

is also the need for strong accountability and transparency in DRR donorship,482

in the

facilitation of DRR implementation throughout the project cycle, as the following section

suggests.

5.3 FISCAL MATTERS AND ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN EU DRR PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION

Effective implementation of DRR programming through a rights-based approach to EU-

partner relations in DRR programming includes the demonstration of accountability and

transparency in the provision of funding for humanitarian and development aid in practice.

Donor responsibilities formally represented in the Paris Declaration state funding must be

provided with humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence.483

Funding for

humanitarian projects must be humane, with a strong regard for a recipient’s needs, rights,

and customs; it must be provided to all those in need irrespective of an individual’s

nationality, gender, age, ethnicity, or circumstance. Humanitarian investments must be neutral

in nature, and independent of external influence. In turn, organisations receiving donor

funding to execute humanitarian action, including DRR programming, must comply with the

requirements attached to donor funding. The funding and implementation obligations should

recognise the importance of risk assessments, monitoring and evaluation of the project

activities and objectives, final reporting and dissemination of project resultant outcomes and

482

J Twigg et al., Guidance notes on participation and accountability in disaster reduction, (London: UCL,

2001). 483

OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (OECD, 2005).

173

lessons learned. This shifts the discussions of humanitarianism and human rights beyond

immediate interactions with those at risk, to accountable and transparent processes of

humanitarian actors to ensure a rights-based approach to implementation and funding of

foreign policy activities. As Crosston emphasised with the example of the United States’

government, it is necessary to hold states accountable to translate core foreign policy

objectives, and to respect human dignity through accountable processes, in order to uphold

their obligations towards international human rights norms.484

The human security model

pivots on robust accountability measures from donors in foreign policy processes. In addition,

decentralised governance through increased local ownership in decision-making, and the

participation of all actors in said processes, ensures a rights-based approach.

When looking at the financial aspects of DRR programming as part of foreign policy, it

becomes apparent there have been significant increases in donors allocating funds to DRR as

part of their ODA. Yet this assistance to affected countries can be as an element of

humanitarian aid, similar to the EU’s approach, or DRR as part of general development aid,

such as incorporated into climate change initiatives, and as such, recurrent data analysis

indicates DRR initiatives are often present in both spheres.

Within the EU’s combined development aid budget of 132.7 Euros from the Commission and

Member States in the 2012 budget, 35.15 million Euros was assigned to DRR, or 0.2%. This

is a comparatively minor fraction of the total development budget, despite the EU’s global

title of the largest aid donor, and the Union labelling DRR as an important element in its

development and external action agenda. An examination of DIPECHO budgets since its

inauguration does show, however, significant growth in DIPECHO’s annual budgets to

complement increased DRR policy formation and field operations by the EU over the last

decade, as depicted in Figure 4.2.

484

Matthew Crosston, “Fighting Terror and Spreading Democracy: When Theory and Practice Collide,” in

Global Community, eds. Randall E. Osborne and Paul Kries, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 23.

174

Figure 5.1 The annual budgets for DIPECHO485

Given its rather humble beginnings of 8 million Euros in 1998, the funding of DIPECHO

operations has grown dramatically to over 35 million Euros from 2012. The significant

increase in 2007 is mirrored by the commitment of the EU to DRR in the 2007 Consensus for

Humanitarian Aid. One member of DG ECHO explains this increase in funding has resulted

in the expansion of the DIPECHO programme:

“I remember years where, in the 2000s, we didn’t have more

than 8 million. Now we have 34 million, so you can do more.

That’s also why we have expanded a program in these regions

and we have even included new regions such as the Southern

Africa Indian Ocean rim, Western Pacific – that’s a very new

initiative – and a little bit in the Caucasus area.”486

Data analysis reviewed how DRR implementation impacts on EU visibility, and affects the

funding of partner agencies. Out of the 91 Asia Pacific projects illustrated on the websites of

485

European Commission, “Disaster Risk Reduction,”

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/prevention_preparedness/dipecho_en.htm, Accessed: 7 January 2014; European

Commission, Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the Financial Year 2012

[COM(2011)300], (Brussels: European Commission, 2011); European Commission, Commission Implementing

Decision on the financing of humanitarian aid operational priorities from the 2013 general budget of the

European Union [C(2012)9883], (Brussels: European Commission, 2013); European Commission, Commission

Implementing Decision on financing humanitarian aid operational priorities from the 2014 general budget of

the European Union [C(2013)9533], (Brussels: European Commission, 2014). 486

Interview excerpt, ECHO staff, 10/11/2012.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014*

Annual Budget

(million Euros)

* proposed

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/prevention_preparedness/dipecho_en.htm

175

child-focussed FPA partners, 5 mentioned the support of ECHO. The lack of visibility of the

EU on the websites of partners contradicts the EU’s aspirations of recognition as a global

power in external action through the provision of aid. Data depicted in the Financial Tracking

Service (FTS)487

referring to the European Union as a donor, separated ECHO from the other

European Commission mechanisms. According to the mandate, ECHO would represent

humanitarian action and DRR, with DG DEVCO to embody development aid, either through

EuropeAid or the ACP partnership, and any action undertaken by the EEAS would be in

terms of conflict management. The EU has also committed funding bilaterally in two

instances to Thailand in 2004 and 2005, for flood preparation and mitigation and

humanitarian assistance for the Boxing Day tsunami, respectively. For the latter, the amount

provided is undisclosed. The other major bilateral commitment represented on the FTS is a

USD$2million commitment from the European Commission to the Pacific in 2009, towards

recovery assistance. Nevertheless, in a Pacific context, according to the FTS, funding was

given to Save the Children for the 2009 Samoa tsunami, but activities were undisclosed. One

director of a Pacific NDMO suggests that bilateral funding can be obtained, but that the

process can be quite difficult.

“Currently that is another window that has been made

available through the EU – the EU also have been willing to

give money directly, we also have direct access, but to get

funding it’s a bit difficult, and the process is a bit lengthy, and

we need to meet all the EU requirements to be provided with

funding directly. The process and the requirements you have

to satisfy...”488

The use of both ECHO and Commission as a donor increases the confusion surrounding the

institutional roles. For not only logistical reasons but also the provision of funding bilaterally

487

According to the information on the Financial Tracking Service, data collated in the form of donor funding

for organisations towards emergencies represent pledges, commitments or paid contributions. Pledge - A non-

binding announcement of an intended contribution or allocation by the donor. Can be specific as to appealing

agency and project, or specify only the crisis; Commitment - The creation of a contractual obligation regarding

funding between the donor and appealing agency. Typically takes the form of a signed contract. Once a funding

commitment is made, agencies can begin spending against it, using cash reserves; Paid Contribution - The

payment or transfer of funds or in-kind goods from the donor towards the appealing agency, resulting from a

commitment. 488


176

leads to queries concerning ECHO’s mandate, and its assured autonomy, independent from

political influences attached to its aid.489

The long-term impact of not acting through

partnership can have direct reflections on the upholding of governance principles and a rights-

based approach to humanitarian and development assistance. The accountability of

partnerships490

and the EU’s neutrality in donorship, are underpinned in the core values of the

Paris Declaration, and the concepts represented in HFA agreement to reduce the risks of

disasters, which the EU promotes.491

Again, there is a degree of self-reflection required of the

EU’s own policy lexis, and the need to uphold these core values in its partnerships to

implement a rights-based approach to DRR.

One FPA agency representative attests DIPECHO funding can be ‘a bit restrictive,’

particularly with the need to reapply for subsequent phases of DRR programming.492

Indeed,

EU representatives have recognised the limited length of DIPECHO projects. At Brussels

level, an ECHO representative acknowledged that for ‘lasting change in disaster

preparedness, you cannot do that within just a short period of time, you have to do years.

Even that eighteen months is too short but there is always ways to continue...’493

Historically,

the DIPECHO timeframe was 12 months, and as one practitioner suggests, ‘the timeframe for

DIPECHO has always been ridiculous – it used to be 12 months, which was 9 by the time

you’ve done everything else, which is no time at all.’494

Indeed, the increase to 18 months is

still ‘not enough time to do anything successful.’495

An in-country partner organisation

presented this to ECHO during a monitoring visit:

“We were talking about how the 18 month funding

arrangements weren’t long enough to get anything done – I

think it was Phase I for the EU DRR funding for DIPECHO.

We were pointing out, ‘you’ve come to see, you can see after

489

Daniel S. Hamilton, “The Lisbon Treaty and Relations between the European Union and the United States,”

The Foreign Policy of the European Union, eds. Federiga Bindi and Irina Angelescu, (Washington DC:

Brookings Institute, 2012), 219. 490

J Twigg, Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community, (London: UCL, 2009), 11. 491

European Commission, EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries, (Brussels:



Interview excerpt, ECHO staff, 10/11/2012. 494

Interview excerpt, Anonymous 12/09/2012. 495

Interview excerpt, World Vision [regional], 29/08/2012.

177

9 months what we’ve been able to do. There’s so many

remote locations, all the logistics etc, it’s not doable – 18

months is not a timeframe we can show any sort of tangible

progress.”496

Yet according to an ECHO administrator, the longevity of specific DIPECHO programming

may not be in the provision of DRR for the same community it assisted through the initial

funding, but to a different community in the region. “If you look through DIPECHO

programmes, they are in a way ongoing, no always in the same country or location but in the

region.”497

While a regional approach can ensure reduced vulnerability in neighbouring

communities, the original phase may not have implemented sustainable DRR in the eighteen

months provided. “What DIPECHO wants is to demonstrate how community-based disaster

preparedness can be done, and test methodologies, which are appropriate to the context, and

once they have proven to work, advocate them for a roll-out, or replication.”498

This statement

from ECHO demonstrates not only a concentration on preparedness, rather than a holistic

approach to risk reduction, but also that there is the assumption that methodologies can be

‘replicated,’ despite a potential difference in risks and approaches to said risks within regions,

or even provinces, let alone differences in social and cultural context. In order to sustain DRR

programming, certain agencies are looking to alternative funding sources. One DRR

programmer representing a faith-based organisation explained access to funding from

supporters meant a shift away from the limitations of institutional funding: “70% of our funds

come from supporters of the catholic church... so basically what that means is we have a

certain amount of flexibility around our programmes. So we’re not always fighting for

institutional funding.”499

While this source of financial assistance for programming requires

less implementation barriers from donor funding, it is not always accessible, with many

organisations focussed on grant funding:

“Instead of just going to Australia and New Zealand, we think

we can access more funding from the EU, for projects that

496




Interview excerpt CAFOD, 10/09/2012.

178

can be implemented for a period of time – because one of the

struggles we have, is that we are grant funded, dependant on

grant funding. Other offices in other parts of the world, they

have other funding through child sponsorship... but our main

source of funding comes from grants...”500

Yet some smaller organisations simply do not have the resources to rely on institutional

grants, if there is a gap within funding cycles. “If you’re a big enough organisation, and

you’ve got enough in the piggy bank, you can stretch yourself, but you have to have the

confidence that you’ll get the second round of funding...You’ve got the smaller ones that

either have to depend on giving their project to a larger organisation, or just letting it drop,

but it’s not good.”501

Not only do the intervals between funding between projects affect the sustainability of the

project affected, the lack of continuity of DRR programming can result in subsequent impacts

on communities, particularly with regards to employment and knowledge exchange:

“If there’s a gap of 2 or 3 months, your people are

unemployed or they find work elsewhere...so it’s very

difficult to get any continuity or build on what you’ve done,

set up a programme...But programmes are not designed to be

long-term sustainable programmes... hopefully some things

stick, but they always need to be followed up with something

in the communities, to keep them engaged.”502

As such, timeframe restrictions for funding meant often funding had to be acquired from

several donors:

“We had CIDA Canada funding, we had USAID funding, we

had a little bit of DFID funding, we had some other bilateral

funding. You just try to stagger the projects so there are not

500

Interview excerpt, World Vision [in-country], 15/10/2012. 501


Interview excerpt, ICRC, 27/09/2012.

179

gaps between the projects...The 18 month timeframe is

difficult because it takes you a couple of months to get people

hired, get the projects started, sell the project to the

community.”503

One ECHO official in Brussels confirmed that given the length of DIPECHO funding, it is

understood that funding is expected to be used in collaboration with other external funding.

“The funds ECHO can make available to DIPECHO

programme are not sufficient to give out to every country, it

has to be done by others coming on board, either

development donors, or the government taking share.”504

In theory, this is effective for donors as collaborations between development donors can be

cost-effective, ensure continuity of programming at a community level, and ensure there is a

lack of duplicity of donor funding. For partner organisations, such strategies require

substantial levels of capacity and resources to generate the project documentation to be

submitted at the behest of numerous donors, with various pro forma requirements. This line

of attack can lead to intervals between funding, increasing risks at a local level. While

government involvement in DRR programming is positive in terms of commitment against

vulnerability, in some situations local governmental bureaucracy can have consequences on

the implementation and outcomes of the programming at a community level.505

However, one

representative of a partner organisation states the importance of funding short-term pilots, as

achieved with DIPECHO funding. Yet the representative stresses the need to link to the

second phase:

“... It comes down to [the donors’] area of interest, what their

area of interest has been in the past, and what they stick to...

So when they do something new, or get new funding to do

something new, let’s say for DRR or CCA, that they need to

503



Such repercussions of the timeframe and financing of DRR programming on local levels of protection and

empowerment, and local governance structures to undertake DRR programming are looked at in more detail in

the subsequent chapter, specific to the Asia Pacific region.

180

be a bit more open minded that piloting is a really great way

of starting a trial based project approach. So, you can see the

sustainability and all the things they want to see – the longer-

term impact, that’s almost guaranteed before they sign the

second cheque… I applaud organisations and donors that can

be open-minded enough. They don’t want you to do the

whole country in one year – they’re happy to see how things

go at a smaller scale, more quality and more quantifiable data.

I’d rather save one person’s life than kind of save a thousand,

and some donors are heading that way.” 506

Along with matters of funding structures, and proposal design, many of the DRR practitioners

indicate the subsequent phases of the project cycle contain aspects of implementation, which

require flexibility, or even concrete change, in donor-partner DRR linkages. Ineffective or

unlined phases of the project cycle, namely, the assessments, monitoring and evaluation,

reporting and the dissemination of project outcomes, can in some instances compromise the

effectiveness of DRR programming in-country. From a rights-based perspective,

accountability and transparency measures throughout the project cycle reflect the need for

coordination and dialogue with partners active at all levels. 507

In addition, a holistic approach

to risk identification, of all the risks faced by a community in the assessment phases of DRR

programming,508

signal a rights-based approach to DRR implementation. In turn, this requires

a reflection on the attitudes towards risk, and shifting from a technical focus of risk, based on

needs, to a more holistic approach, inclusive of social vulnerabilities. As Hyslop and Collins

state, “the description and measurement of risk are important to the identification, evaluation

506


Mark Rhinard, and Bengt Sundelius, “The Limits of Self-Reliance,” in Designing Resilience: Prepare for

extreme events, eds. Louise K Comfort, Arjen Boin, and Chris C. Demchak, (Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh, 2010), 201. 508

Louise K. Comfort et al. “Resilience revisited: an action agenda for managing extreme events,” in Designing

Resilience: Prepare for extreme events, eds. Louise K Comfort, Arjen Boin, and Chris C. Demchak, (Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh, 2010), 283.

181

and estimation of risk,”509

and in doing so, upholds a rights-based approach and reduces

vulnerability across the project life, and throughout the disaster cycle.

This is not reflected in the EU’s needs-based approach to DRR project implementation.

Content analysis of the ECHO FPA partner contractual papers and supporting documentation

indicate a propensity towards the use of needs assessments, and to a lesser degree, risk

assessments. The 2010 supporting documents for FPA partners demonstrate the focus on the

employ of needs assessments in the initial phases of ECHO-financed humanitarian

assistance.510

The favouring of needs assessments centres on the concentration of alleviating

the immediate needs of those at risk - namely food, shelter, and water - with a disregard for

social issues. Despite policy declarations to uphold human rights demonstrated in lexis in the

previous chapter, interview participants at the various levels of EU administration did not

considered human rights as an element of humanitarian response. This reflects the needs-

based approach towards humanitarianism, promoted by the ECHO mandate. One European

Commission representative established this needs-based approach:

“Humanitarian aid, there is no focus or conditionality on

human rights, it’s about needs, even if the government is not

abiding by human rights...”511

This approach is conveyed through the assessments used by the EU:

“Needs assessments– they see 100,000 people on a plateau

and they know where to put the tents, things like that. But if

we start to engage in political movement, regional integration

and that sort of things, we start to spend all our time there

...”512

At the regional level, one ECHO representative confirms the mandate, and the view of human

rights in humanitarian assistance:

509

Maitland P. Hyslop and Andrew E. Collins, “Hardened institutions and disaster risk reduction,”

Environmental Hazards 12, no. 1 (2013): 20. 510

European Community Humanitarian Office, Partnership with DG ECHO: Supporting Documents, (Brussels:


Interview excerpt, European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Cabinet, 4/11/2010. 512

Interview excerpt, European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Cabinet, 4/11/2010.

182

“...The main objective of both, of the crisis response and

humanitarian aid is providing humanitarian assistance... If we

had to look at the human rights situation in certain countries

every time we are getting active, of course we’re active in a

country doesn’t mean we’re making a judgement call on their

human rights situation and we don’t want to be doing that.”513

The view of the EU officials, in such cases, does not surround an individual’s right to

protection and assistance surrounding a disaster, but of the government’s approach to human

rights, and ECHO’s impartiality in the provision of aid. Yet due to the assumed density of the

issues, ECHO has deemed that social issues, and social risks associated with human rights, do

not hold a place within EU humanitarian assistance, administered under ECHO. Instead,

rights-based assistance is deemed to be incorporated into subsequent phases of projects, under

the umbrella of development. There is a need for a broader perspective of the correlation

between rights and assistance from duty bearers such as policy makers, and recognise

vulnerabilities to violations of rights, as risks. One practitioner confirms, the necessity for

those involved in humanitarianism to expand their view from a needs-based approach to a

more comprehensive view of risks:

“Need is essentially an emotional reaction to a

situation…Where we started out in this sector is the

unprofessional volunteerism, get whatever you can, throw it

in at them… And we’ve tried in the sector over the last

twenty years to move away from that, to try and

professionalise, trying to think, ‘no, airdrops are not the way,

they kill a lot of people, there is a much more professional

way of doing aid, of doing this.’ But the next step to take on

that road to professionalising, is being able to take on these

big issues of uncertainty and managing risk.”514

513

Interview excerpt, ECHO Information Officer, 25/02/2011. 514

Interview excerpt, Helpage, 11/09/2012.

183

ECHO’s narrow outlook on humanitarianisms restricted to needs affects its approach to DRR

programming. The project design and subsequent activities undertaken by the partners can

become constricted, and can affect the levels of DRR at the community level. There is a

recognition of the requirement for risk assessments and an outline of project outcomes prior

to implementation, but with a lack of financial support for partners to undertake such

assessments.

“When you put in for a proposal for a DRR project, in theory

a DRR project should be very flexible, and the ideal situation

would be that you have the money to do a community based

risk assessment, and then identify the needs, then apply for

whatever mitigation is required, or action, but unfortunately

in the proposal you have to write what you’re going to do, so

you have to write your end result in the proposal at the

beginning, which just goes against the whole ethos of DRR,

but I don’t know what the solution is across the board…I’m

sure ECHO would say you need to do that risk assessment

before applying, but you still need the money to be able to do

that assessment.”515

Furthermore, with an underlying conception of humanitarianism based on needs, risk

assessments can remain limited and often ignore social risks, along with a disregard for slow

onset risks. In addition to reflecting on adapting the underlying needs-based attitude of the

EU towards assessments, an all-embracing approach to monitoring and evaluation is

necessary for a rights-based approach to DRR implementation in order to recognise such slow

onset risks and societal risks throughout the disaster cycle.

Operational monitoring and evaluation throughout the project is central to a rights-based

approach by ensuring effective governance in DRR project implementation. By ascertaining

the phases and deliverables of projects are subject to rigorous monitoring and evaluation

ensures a holistic reduction of risks throughout the disaster cycle. De Guttry et al. emphasise

the importance of assessments and monitoring and evaluations to identify the specific needs

515

Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/09/2012.

184

and capabilities to better protect vulnerable groups in disaster management.516

During project

implementation, ECHO and DEVCO employ results-oriented monitoring of aid. This implies

greater attention given to the quality of the results and indicators, and thus the formation of

indicators during the needs assessments. Despite a results-based approach being more in line

with monitoring qualitative data, and thus social risks, the limited nature of the initial needs

assessments suggests social risks can be overlooked.517

Local governance structures can also

influence levels of accountability in project implementation and the monitoring and

evaluation of project deliverables, with the responsibility shifted to the partner agencies. As a

local donor indicates:

“We are conscious too that we operate in a high risk

environment. We acknowledge that fraud does occur, we just

need to manage the risks attached to that...We have a funding

agreement with a recipient…and we then acquit those funds

against the budget and the milestones in the contract….the

onus is on them to ensure that there are adequate systems in

place, and if they’re not then they need to improve them, or

justify to us why they did something, which ran contrary to

what they signed up to when they were accredited.” 518

According to one DRR practitioner, EU monitoring and evaluation can be so extensive it

requires high levels of local partner capacity to undertake the project monitoring and

evaluation, affecting the undertaking of EC projects to the extent that some European

agencies will not apply for EU funding.

“Arguably, some partners wouldn’t go for it because as I say,

their capacity for monitoring and evaluation sometimes can

be quite low, and we help them build that capacity, but if

you’re doing an EC project, or a DIPECHO project, there are

516

Mariangela Bizzarri, “Protection of Vulnerable Groups in Natural and Manmade Disasters,” in International

Disaster Response Law, eds. Andrea de Guttry et al. (The Hague: Springer, 2012), 410-411. 517

David McEntire, “Understanding and reducing vulnerability: from the approach of liabilities and capabilities.

Disaster prevention and management 21, no. 2 (2012): 216. 518

Interview excerpt, AusAID, 16/10/2012.

185

quite stringent requirements in monitoring and evaluation and

it’s no bad thing – it helps us do projects better and I imagine,

some partners would say they’ve benefitted from that…but

other partners won’t touch it – they’ll just say, ‘no, we did it

before, and it was too much, it’s too much.’ It’s a balancing

act really.”519

Nevertheless, results-oriented monitoring of EU assistance remains static as monitoring and

evaluation only goes so far. As already established, to address existing and impending risk,

DRR programming requires long term project timeframes to ensure the sustainability of the

reduction of risks. This also requires long term monitoring and evaluation, far beyond the

existing timeframes of DIPECHO programming. Such is the example of high impact

disasters, which can take decades to recover from, but project financial configurations denote

that milestones throughout project implementation are transitory.

“…Let’s see if we can build some of these engagements and

let them run for a long time, because the situation … is going

to take a long time to fix, but as we go along, have people

take the time to evaluate, to change the direction it’s going,

and make sure that funding goes to the right places, because

that’s the important thing. It you’re not evaluating what’s

going on, how can you tell where it’s supposed to be

going?”520

But with short project timeframes, and limited monitoring and evaluation of the impacts of

projects on communities, it is unsure whether reduced vulnerability is achieved at a local

level, particularly over a number of years. A holistic approach to sustainable DRR is lengthy,

and thus requires monitoring and evaluation over an extended period. This leads to matters of

responsibility in facilitating identification of the long term status of risk at a community level,

and the effectiveness of DRR programming to reduce vulnerability, beyond the project

timeframe. One DRR practitioner points to the limitations of funding, and agencies’

519


Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 11/09/2012

186

obligations to pursue funding streams and the priorities of the donors, thus community-level

DRR programming can discontinue at the expense of potentially increased community

vulnerability:

“This whole business with the lack of evaluation that NGOs

don't do around projects. They go in, they do whatever they

do, the funding runs out and they move out and moves onto

the next thing. Well who goes in a year, three years, five

years later to look at what they did, and evaluate - has it

reduced vulnerability? Has it increased vulnerability?”521

Indeed, the relationships between the EU and its partners beyond project implementation can

influence subsequent funding for the organisation, and the levels of vulnerability in the

community. Views from practitioners on the EU’s responses post-project vary between

regions. One European-level partner previously working on EC funded projects in the

Caribbean conversely emphasised the importance placed on building on previous projects by

both parties.

“We’re very proactive about doing that whether right after the

project, regional evaluations, working on a number of

different projects. The next time you put a proposal forward,

[ECHO] were very critical on how does this build on the past

project…Critical in a positive way. The guy that was in

charge… he was dedicated, he wanted to make things

work.”522

The relationship between this particular regional DRR practitioner with the EC was a positive

one, where ECHO “would bring the different partners together and were very good about

making sure the ECHO projects didn’t duplicate.” 523

However, despite having an effective

working relationship with ECHO staff at a local level, there could still be gaps between

funding for DRR programming, due to the overarching ECHO funding policies at Brussels

521

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 11/09/2012 522


Interview excerpt, ICRC, 27/09/2012.

187

level. For the Pacific regional DRR practitioner, the different reporting mechanisms at

Brussels and Bangkok meant the EU had limited understanding of what was being undertaken,

despite the organisation cohering to reporting requirements, “They get their programme

progress reports… it goes to Brussels, or Bangkok, but they don’t get to know what happens

next. Which is a shame...”524

The secession of a partnership with the EU following project

implementation indicates there may be repercussions on project design, monitoring and

evaluation, and additionally, the effectiveness of in-country and regional DRR activities

overall.

Reporting on project milestones, outcomes, and outputs, allows for assurance of effective

governance of project implementation. Indeed, a core component of the Paris Declaration on

effective donorship indicates the need for donors to harmonise their monitoring and reporting

requirements with local processes.525

For the EU, its extensive reporting for project

implementation administered at an EU level requires partner organisations with the capacities

and resources to undertake the reporting. As such, the vetting process carried out by ECHO

when granting FPAs requires that partners not only have the prerequisites of qualified staff

and uphold humanitarian principles in their legislation, including recognition of the rights of

those they are working with, but they must also provide regular reporting to Brussels of

developments in the project. One information officer at the Bangkok ECHO office explains:

“Because of our detailed reporting requirements, we want to

make sure the partners we choose have the capacity to report

back both in writing but also in financial reports. We also

want to make sure that the partners we want to work with in a

certain region have a presence in that region, they have

qualified staff, so that it’s not just a mom and pop

organisation that just pops up somewhere...”526

In the general conditions applicable to EU grant agreements with humanitarian organisations

for humanitarian aid actions, Article 10 stipulates the humanitarian organisations must submit

524


OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, (OECD, 2005),

Article 45. 526

Interview excerpt, ECHO Information Officer, 25/02/2011.

188

intermediate and final narrative and financial reports, which outline the objective and resultant

activities, in addition to a financial report, which indicates all expenses incurred.527

These

reporting requirements augment the infrastructural constraints for project implementation

where proposals and final reporting must be submitted to ECHO in Brussels, while mid-

project implementation reporting is conveyed to the regional ECHO offices, such as Bangkok.

As an EU official aforementioned, it is the agency’s responsibility to report to the EU, but

there may be capacity or financial constraints to produce public documentation. As Barkin

suggests, successful monitoring can be hampered by inadequate technology, and excessive

cost.528

If these barriers are overcome, additional hurdles exist in the form of breakdowns in

communication between the EU and its partners as to who makes the project information

public via UN-administered online portals, such as the UNISDR’s Preventionweb,529

or the

Asia Pacific DRR portal,530

which accumulate humanitarian and DRR project details

including project documentation, financial and thematic information. Data is contributed by

the donors or the agencies but the complication lies in the definition of the EU, and again, EU

institutional overlap.

“I’m not going to tell our partners to fill it in if in three

months someone else will have to redo everything because

the entry point into the donors is not correct and at this

stage it is not… So the Pacific projects are registered under

ECHO, and this is wrong…A small decision on something

like that has an implication which is far beyond anybody

or one person deciding and that’s also the point of a

common position within the EC, or even ECHO to position

itself…”531

527

European Commission, “Annex III: General conditions applicable to European Union Grant Agreements with

humanitarian organisations for humanitarian aid actions,” (Brussels: European Commission, 2009), 7. 528

J Samuel, Barkin, International Organisation: Theories and Institutions, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan,

2013), 46. 529

UNISDR, “Prevention Web” http://www.preventionweb.net. 530

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), “Disaster Risk Reduction DRR

Project Portal: Asia-Pacific’s tool for effective DRR planning,” http://www.drrprojects.net/drrp/drrpp/home .

Accessed: 4 April 2013. 531

Interview excerpt, ECHO DRR Coordinator, 25/02/2011.

http://www.preventionweb.net/


189

In addition to ineffective information dissemination tools, humanitarian agencies’ policies can

constrain organisations in the production of project outputs and outcomes. The information to

become public is limited due to potential intellectual property risks, and agencies seeking to

protect the future direction of projects. Subsequent documentation disclosed to the public,

therefore, does not necessarily include the practical information surrounding the project. This

would assist in knowledge exchange with other agencies, and the subsequent applications of

community-based DRR.

“Your project outcomes tend to be slightly propaganda styles,

so they all say, ‘we did participatory mobilisation etc,’ it all

sounds the same – you could be reading about the same

project every time. If you were another organisation wanting

to do that work – what does it teach you about how to do it?

Actually nothing.”532

The dissemination of project designs and evaluations can assist in the efficiency of DRR

across different communities, countries, and regions, and in addition, lead to the avoidance of

duplicity of project implementation at country or regional level.

Despite the extensive reporting requirements, project outcomes are not always published,

affecting the transparency of project reporting. Public dissemination of project

implementation, and the effects on community levels of vulnerability, are central to the

concept of transparency in the financing of DRR programming. An interview participant from

UNDP suggests:

“My own opinion, being mindful of others in the resources

that we have, in sharing the resources, and actually having the

right of someone benefiting from the same output, or

whatever the project or whatever development initiative is

coming up...”533

532

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 12/09/2012.. 533


190

Such a statement emphasises every member of the community’s right to freedom from fear,

and their access to any aspect of DRR programming, whether it was effective or not in

reducing levels of vulnerability. It is their prerogative to consider the actions to reducing risk,

and if it can be applied to their own context and situation. This is the essence of agency-based

programming, and a rights-based approach to community-based DRR programming in

general. Increased knowledge exchange between actors, through the dissemination of DRR

project documentation, will be discussed further in the following chapter vis-à-vis EU-

facilitated DRR implementation in a local context. Chapter VI also focuses on the importance

of recognising in-country structures, and the cultural context of implementing DRR to reduce

risks within communities.


This chapter has demonstrated the institutional and implementation barriers in translating

rights-based lexis in DRR policy to praxis at an EU level, through to project implementation

at a local level. DRR programming can exist as a component of both humanitarian and

development assistance, funded through ECHO and DEVCO respectively. The difficulty

being projects can include multiple activities to be carried out at various stages of disaster,

making the EU’s institutional structure a hindrance to project implementation. This can be

remedied through the reduction of barriers in linking to subsequent phases of project

implementation between immediate and long-term assistance.

The existence of DIPECHO does not assist in reconciling this hindrance, but adds to it, as

another institution for organisations to have a rapport with, in order to obtain funding. The

objective of unifying the grey area between humanitarian and development assistance is not

achieved if partner rapport is not facilitated in carrying out this assistance.

There can be significant repercussions of implementation barriers through DRR programming

project cycle. Firstly, a needs-based approach to project implementation indicates a short-

term approach to protectionism in donorship. Liu suggests that speed and efficiency in short-

term programming is less important than the quality of the result of disaster efforts.534

The

534

Liu, A., Building a Better New Orleans: A Review of and Plan for Progress One Year after Hurricane

Katrina, The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, August 2006.

191

assurance of upholding rights, and the reduction of social vulnerability, as the underlying

values of human security ensures a holistic approach to risks, both in the short and long-term.

Engagement with partners throughout the project cycle and following the projects ensures the

effectiveness of DRR programming, and sustainable reduction of vulnerability at a local

level.

The upholding of child rights and implementation of child protection within project

implementation is also impacted by implementation barriers. The perception of child risks

and child protection by the EU in its policy lexis, and praxis through the decisions made on

partnerships, and partner decisions on project praxis, impacts on the vulnerability and agency

of children at a local level. This therefore requires dialogue between the EU and its partners,

and those involved in DRR at all levels of governance, not only at an EU institutional level,

but throughout governance structures in-country. The following chapter draws on these

comments to promote effective DRR donorship in-country.

192

CHAPTER VI

LOCALISATION OF CHILD PROTECTION IN DRR

PROGRAMMING IN THE ASIA PACIFIC

____________________________________________

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter VI unites the previous chapters of lexical and practical applications of child

protection through the human security model, in specific reference to EU donorship

facilitating DRR in the Asia Pacific region. It reviews the effectiveness of funding DRR in a

regional context, followed by analysis of local governance and community-based DRR

mechanisms. This chapter investigates the in-country fusion of contemporary and traditional

methodologies to DRR, and cultural influences on levels of social vulnerability in the context

of child protection throughout the disaster cycle. It looks at the localisation of child protection

and child rights, as part of the broader context of upholding child rights in effective

donorship. In doing so, local channels of praxis demonstrate the filtration of rights to reduce

vulnerability at a local level, in addition to the rebound effect of ensuring child agency at a

global level, through measures of child protection in DRR programming.

This chapter draws on interview data collated from within the Asia Pacific, specifically the

regional and in-country offices of ECHO, along with DRR practitioners in Vanuatu, who are,

or previously have been affiliated with the EU or who have received EU funding.

Accordingly, individuals from implementation partner agencies holding FPAs with the EU, in

addition to other donors active at the local level, were interviewed to review whether

perceptions of the EU in-country matched the opinions of their European counterparts.

6.2 EU AS A PROMOTER OF DRR IN THE ASIA PACIFIC

The action of the EU in DRR through its humanitarian arm, ECHO, promotes partnerships in

reducing the risks to disasters in partner countries. Indeed, as explained in the previous

193

chapter, it requires effective partnerships with international organisations at a European level,

and their subsequent partnerships with local organisations, in order to preserve its legitimacy

in humanitarian assistance, by acting through third parties. The institutional structures in

Brussels, as described previously can assist, or indeed hinder, the effective implementation of

these partnerships in executing DRR programming. The levels of capacity at this European-

level to realise the EU’s humanitarian assistance requires support from its regional offices.

Not only to execute humanitarian programming facilitated by the EU, but regional offices are

also well positioned to promote the EU’s endorsement of regional integration.

The transcendence of EU focus from beyond the European periphery to the Asia Pacific is

believed to influence regional policy and actions, both in a broad sense, and in specific areas

of concern, such as disasters. Through regional strategies for both South East Asia and the

Pacific,535

the EU supports and coordinates with the respective regional governmental

alliances, ASEAN and the Pacific Island Forum, and additionally with regional organisations,

such as the Secretariat for the Pacific Community. As stated, ECHO is limited in its capacity

to do so, yet the EU regional office in Bangkok plays an important role in synchronising

Brussels’ donorship priorities, with local activities on the ground. To identify views on the

EU’s donorship actions in facilitating DRR, Figure 6.1 represents the perspectives of various

local actors in-country.

IN-COUNTRY EU

DELEGATION

I cannot be that concrete on DRR as we participate by the World Bank, or ECHO via

Red Cross. Reporting is managed directly by ECHO in Bangkok [...]536

UN AGENCY

STAFF

The EU’s here, but except that it is not very strong as when you find it in other

countries.537

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

In some ways the EU presence here is tiny, but for the Pacific I think they do need to

ramp up their presence. Even in-country, there’s only a handful of staff and sometimes

they’re so overloaded. In terms of getting them to attend events that are funded by

them, sometimes it’s really hard because they’re completely overstretched.538

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

Maybe AusAID is more physically present here, but we can communicate a lot with

the team in Bangkok and have some support if we need it [...]539

535

Ibid. 536


Interview excerpt, UN Agency, 16/10/2012. 538

Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012 539

Interview excerpt, Care International, 17/10/2012

194

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

I think in-country perhaps donors need to adopt - particularly seeing as in some cases

donors are funding the same organisations. Maybe that’s a cross-referencing thing[...]

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

A lot of donors coming into the Pacific, but not working collaboratively. So you’ve

got the EU, EC, AusAID, NZAid, USAID have just launched a $20 million

programme based out of Port Moresby on community-based adaptation across the

Pacific, UNDP about to announce 18 million coming through AusAID for DRR.540

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

It depends if you’re talking about DRR or emergency humanitarian response. DRR in

a development context, is a priority in this country for development programming, so I

say the EU should have a role in supporting development that is aligned to risk

reduction, or risk reduction activities that are part of a broader community

programme, and climate change adaptation.541

IN-COUNTRY

DONOR

I think it comes down to AusAid giving other donors that perspective, whether it’s

talking about our own humanitarian action policy and the focus it gives on vulnerable

groups, or providing a bit of a Pacific perspective on things that are going on in other

countries, highlighting examples of where things are working. I think a lot of it comes

down to information sharing, but also capacity – we’re the biggest donor in Vanuatu

by far so the EU has a very small presence here, as do the Kiwis, so I think often they

look to Australia for the lead or consistency on issues such as this.

Figure 6.1 Views of donorship in the Asia Pacific

Paradoxically, the local chargée d’affaires, or in-country EU ambassador, has little influence

of the reporting process of project implementation, further than general updates on project

achievements from partners. The in-country EU delegation reiterates the role of the Bangkok

office to undertake the administration of DRR programming in the region, both South East

Asia and the Pacific. Some partners believe this role to be inappropriate for Pacific regional

implementation.

“When it comes to DRR, I think the Pacific does need to be

standalone. I disagree with agencies having an Asia focus

when we’re totally different regions of the world, and there

should be considerable investment into the Pacific as a

standalone. [...] If you’re based in Bangkok, how can you

540


Interview excerpt, Save the Children, 18/10/2012.

195

possibly have your head around the Pacific?”542

Another in-country partner organisation recognised the ineffectiveness of ECHO staff from

Brussels and Bangkok monitoring and evaluating local projects. The staff had little awareness

of the region. “I guess they’d been briefed, one of them it was their first time to the

Pacific,”543

suggesting a lack of comprehension from ECHO staff of the context in-country in

terms of the country’s structure, programming, and cultural milieu. Another international

organisation representative believed that despite the geographic locations of the reporting and

financial mechanisms, it endeavoured to engage with the local European Commission staff:

Each time we have a workshop funded by DIPECHO, or a

monitoring visit, we invite someone from the Commission544

to be aware at least of what we are doing, even if the financial

mechanism doesn’t go through them.545

While this may be considered to be the role of the in-country delegation, the limited EU staff

capacity and general EU presence in-country indicates the delegation is stretched to a point

where involvement in national DRR programming is limited to attending events or updates, as

indicated in Figure 5.1. The EU’s role in the region is also influenced by the presence of

Member States, particularly in the Pacific where certain Member States have overseas

territories. As one local donor reflected:

“I think there’s just a common understanding. I can’t speak

for either donor but the French have the assets, and the

proximity to New Caledonia to be able to possibly get access

to assets, and the EU has a different role.”546

542



The in-country Delegation for the European Union 545

Interview excerpt, Care International, 17/10/2012 546


196

For partner organisations, the collaboration of donors and, ‘cross-referencing’ of humanitarian

and development donorship increases the effectiveness of DRR programming in-country. For

donorship to be effective requires collaboration with other donors and the manifestation of

knowledge exchange of local donorship actions. Nevertheless, there are indications of partner

organisations stating communication with the Bangkok EU office is sufficient for their

implementation of EU facilitated programming, while others identify other funding

opportunities from local country donors present in the Pacific.

In terms of local engagement between donors, AusAID believe the role it holds as a

substantial donor in the Pacific assists in influencing other donors including the EU, in the

avoidance of duplicity in the provision of aid, whilst “providing a bit of a Pacific

perspective.”547

Collaboration amongst donors can shape regional policy formation, through

the provision of a more holistic approach to those at risk with “the focus it gives on

vulnerable groups.”548

Alliances amongst donors in recognising the needs of all societal

factions at risk can assist in implementing a rights-based approach to DRR programming,

where all forms or risks are acknowledged. This requires a holistic approach to risk, in the

implementation of humanitarian and development assistance to cover technical and social

risks across the entire disaster cycle. The focus is often on the disaster phases of response, and

preparedness to respond, from donors in DRR, such as from the ECHO/DIPECHO aid

mechanism, and subsequent development aid. As stated by one in-country organisation

representative in Figure 6.1, DRR can be associated with both humanitarian and development

assistance, through both immediate and slow-onset risks. Donors, such as the EU, must

recognise this in their implementation of DRR. The concentration on preparedness and

response demonstrates the disregard for the other aspects of the disaster cycle and risk

management, where DRR can play a role in linking both immediate responses to disasters and

development in periods of calm and disaster. One practitioner involved in the regional

implementation of DRR for an international organisation states the limited view of DRR, and

the compartmentalisation of DRR hinders the relationship his organisation holds with the EU:

547

Ibid. 548

Ibid.

197

“I haven’t done any work with them. Part of the reason

is...even though they claim to be doing DRR type of work,

they are primarily focused on preparedness and response. I

think that needs to be changed. I think DIPECHO needs to

expand its mandate ... so that it does address, not just

preparedness and response, which is 20% of the picture

right?”549

This statement suggests the practitioner chooses not to apply for EU funding. His comments

reflect that the EU is not fully recognisant of DRR as reducing risks throughout the whole

disaster cycle, and focuses on preparedness, or preparedness to respond. One in-country

agency’s DRR project funded through DIPECHO exemplifies this notion. The primary

objective of their main DRR project in Vanuatu centred on the preparation of communities

and to ‘increase resilience against the impact of natural hazards.’550

However, it does surpass

this limited view of DRR that the secondary objectives of increased knowledge about

disasters and increased governance but this also surrounds governance in disaster response,

not necessarily in recovery or further phases of the disaster cycle. This approach to DRR is

also exemplified by the underlying attitude of other donors active in the Pacific. When asked

about their regional policies on disaster risk reduction, one donor explained that donors were

collaborating in what was considered to be ‘best practice’ for disaster response and the key

information that is needed when undertaking rapid assessments. The donor highlighted that

the initial needs assessments identified specific vulnerabilities for societal factions including

those with disabilities and children, which is encouraging, but again this approach is short

term, and does not extend past the response phase.

Yet the compartmentalisation of risk to coincide with the institutional structures of donorship,

namely humanitarian or development aid, hinders the cyclical avoidance of risk.

Collaborative donorship can assist with ensuring that DRR is cost-effective through increased

the acknowledgement of risk, and implementation of DRR programming across South East

549



198

Asia and the Pacific, despite population variance and geographic disparities. There is

divergence amongst humanitarian actors of the cost-effective nature of implementing DRR in

the Asia Pacific, despite global recognition of the success of reducing risks surrounding

disasters through community-level risk reduction.551

ECHO MEMBER

OF STAFF

…We feel in most cases that there is sufficient response and also rapid response by

New Zealand, by Australia, and this in many cases covers all the needs. Because [the

Pacific] are not huge populations who have to be dealt with, so in a way you can, with

a limited means, do quite a bit. Of course, we stand ready to support and to

complement what is being done by other donors there.552

IN-COUNTRY EU

DELEGATION

I don’t know the figures, but of course you will reach more people in Bangladesh than

in Niue or Vanuatu, but of course Bangladesh is high on the list of countries that is

affected, as Vanuatu but you cannot forget the smaller countries.553

IN-COUNTRY DRR

PRACTITIONER

It goes back to point of how organisations and agencies carve up the globe because

it’s about accessibility, it’s about visibility [...]So basically, the Pacific isn’t sexy

when it comes to disasters – it’s not as dramatic, it doesn’t have the same impact on

people. So places like Fiji, and all the other ones that have like a string of islands, in

terms of value for money, it’s a very expensive exercise. 554

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

Globally there is a difference of looking at risk and how many people at risk [...]

Because you look at the money to spend on 4 thousand people on Tanna,555

but that

same money could be used to provide services to 20 million people in a country[...]No

matter how vulnerable they are, global donors have a tendency of looking at how

many people are at risk.556

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

I think it’s the choice of DIPECHO to work in some parts of the world, and so if they

will like to cover all this part, maybe the funding will be less for each of the countries

[...] There is a lot of place for everyone – to avoid as much as possible duplication and

share the workload, which needs to be done on DRR…557

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

When we speak about human life cost-efficiency, it seems to be a little strange,

because we need to help everyone [...]558

Figure 6.2 Cost-efficiency in Asia Pacific donorship

551

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-

2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005); John Twigg,

Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note (London: DFID Disaster Risk Reduction

Interagency Coordination Group, 2007); World Bank, Understanding Risk (Washington, D.C.: World Bank,

2010). 552




Tanna Island, Vanuatu. 556

Interview excerpt, UN agency, 16/10/2012. 557

Interview excerpt, Care International, 17/10/2012. 558

Interview excerpt, Care International, 17/10/2012.

199

As one ECHO representative suggests in Figure 6.2 above, local donors in the region act as

the primary point of contact in providing assistance to countries in the region in the event of a

disaster. In this particular instance, it is considered that due to the lack of population in the

region of the Pacific, increased EU presence in disaster management is unnecessary. From the

in-country representative of the EU, there is recognition that it may be more cost-effective to

provide assistance to those countries where the populations are higher, but that small island

states, such as Vanuatu should not be overlooked. As indicated by in-country DRR

practitioners and organisation representatives, donorship in the region often comes down to a

question of accessibility for the most effectual provision of ECHO’s limited resources. In

such instances, countries consisting of large land mass, as opposed to archipelagos, are

prioritised. Yet despite the comparatively low populations affected by disasters in the Pacific,

the impact on Pacific country economies can be significant. For example, the 2009

earthquake and subsequent tsunami gravely affected Samoa and Tonga, resulting in the

combined economic damage of US 159 million,559

and positioned Samoa and Tonga as the

highest and third most impacted economies as percentages of the gross domestic product,

with 28.7% and 3.6% respectively.560

In addition, in terms of population, while the amount of

the total number killed were not the highest, the two island states were the most impacted

globally in terms of the number of deaths per 100,000 inhabitants.561

Arguably, references to

those killed or affected do not reflect the impact disasters can have on Pacific states, which

again questions the rationale behind the provision of funding to some countries over others,

and the grounds of cost-effective financing.

The oft considered low impact of disasters on Pacific states’ populations can call into

question the potential visibility of the donors’ activities. One DRR practitioner indicates the

influence of donorship visibility in humanitarianism on presence in certain areas of the Asia

Pacific. Presence of donors is considered as a high priority in the facilitation of humanitarian

and development assistance, and DRR by association, where donors are seen by some DRR

practitioners in Figure 6.2 as in competition for involvement in the investment in the Pacific.

What of donorship in DRR activities? For some partner organisations, it is the prerogative of

559

EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database, http://www.emdat.be Accessed: 21 December, 2010. 560

EM-DAT, “CRED CRUNCH Disaster Data: A balanced perspective,” No. 19, (2010), 1-2. 561

Ibid.

http://www.emdat.be/

200

the donors to be present in specific locations, so long as there is coordination at donor level

on DRR programming, whether as part of humanitarian or development assistance. Others

contest the core humanitarian principles of the donors:

“The fact that the issue of the number beneficiary is one of

the issues, sometimes for cost-efficiency, you say, ‘it may be

better to work in Bangladesh or India than Vanuatu, because

there is not so many people.’ But how can we balance our

measures of one life to another?”562

The presence of donors, and donorship decision-making, can have a direct influence on

protectionism, and the recognition from donors of the vulnerability of individuals and

communities in the Asia Pacific. Policy indications of strengthened ties between the EU in the

Asia Pacific are often underpinned with human rights as a guiding principle.563

The provision

of assistance, and upholding the rights of those at risk, is in line with the responsibilities of

donors as duty bearers.564

Farran explains human rights in the Pacific context often remains at

a community level, but there are also responsibilities of duty bearers to influence change in

decision-making processes. 565

The decision to be less present in a country or region at risk in

the financing of DRR consequently questions EU accountability, and the upholding of its

external action policies to protect those at risk, and their right to protection from disasters and

associated risk.

ECHO

In terms of adhering to humanitarian principles, human rights in the wider sense…we

would withdraw our funding, it’s as easy as that. And usually it works, I mean there are

always situations where humanitarian principles are being compromised, particularly by

difficult regimes, difficult governments, we’ve seen that in Sri Lanka, we are seeing that

in Myanmar, a very prominent case.566

EU DELEGATION [...] Of course we are quite stressed being only six, but in the bigger delegations, where

it might really be a problem, there it might make sense because it’s really a big thing,

562

Interview excerpt, Care International, 17/10/2012. 563

European Commission, Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strenthen the ASEAN-EU enhanced

partnership (2013-2017), (Bandar Seri Begawan: European Commission, 2012); European Commission, Pacific

Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme 2008-2013. (Strasbourg: European Commission,

2008). 564

Elizabeth G. Ferris, The politics of protection: the limits of humanitarian action (Washington, D.C:

Brookings Institute Press, 2011), 102. 565

Sue Farran, Human Rights in the South Pacific: Challenges and Changes, (Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish,

2009), 117. 566


201

and human rights is one of our core principles that we try to communicate to the outside

world[...]567

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

A lot of it, it’s political as well, I mean, it depends on the country office, and what they

think is important, and that has to be balanced against what the technical people think,

and for us it’s priorities, the country’s priorities…568

IN-COUNTRY UN

AGENCY

…These are far equal apart systems. Sometimes people do not have issues with the

conditionalities…but sometimes people think, ‘why are they telling me to do all this, for

this money, when there’s another person willing to give me even more money but

without asking me for anything.’ So EU – the systems and maybe almost like the

systems in the UN – they are very good systems because they prepare, support and

receive such good funding… China does not mind that, whatever you want to do with

your money, you want 300 million, here it is. So that’s why I say that each has its own

advantages, but also its disadvantages.569

Figure 6.3 Human rights & conditionalities in DRR programming in the Asia Pacific

According to the ECHO representative above, funding would be withdrawn if humanitarian

principles, including human rights, were not upheld by their partners. There is also

recognition of the influence of weakened governance on the implementation of EU-financed

programming. Both the withdrawal of financing partner organisations and strict or corrupt

governance in-country can have significant impacts on those at risk at a local level. Califano

argues accountability in public administration will lead to positive empowerment of

individuals and groups their own personal growth,570

and as such represents a reduction in

vulnerability. Figure 6.3 incorporates a statement from an EU delegation of their limited

capacity, and consequently there is no specific representative for human rights, as this is

reserved for larger delegations. Alternatively ‘managing’ human rights is undertaken in

countries where human rights is considered ‘a problem.’ As such, delegations such as

Vanuatu do not have a human rights representative, but it is subsumed into the roles of the

existing staff to impart the EU’s view of human rights as one of their core principles. Despite

this, it is considered by an in-country EU official that while there is little public disclosure of

human rights abuses, the delegation promotes the EU’s core principles, including the

upholding of human rights.

567

Interview excerpt, Anonymous, 15/10/2012. 568 Interview excerpt, ICRC, 15/10/2012. 569


Joseph J. Califano, “Justice, Security, and Genuine Peace,” in Global Community, eds. Randall E. Osborne

and Paul Kries, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 283.

202

“Violence is often not reported, it’s something that is almost

considered as part of their customs but we promote our

principles, and I see Vanuatu is doing pretty well in terms of

signing the international standards of human rights. Of

course, signing and putting into practice is not always the

same in terms of human rights, but I always compare how

Vanuatu is in comparison to her neighbours - not doing too

badly.”571

The signing of international human rights conventions does not translate to the ratified of

such resolutions, requiring sustainable adjustments to governance at all levels, and facilitation

to implement the treaties.572

Such a statement also indicates the disparities of upholding

human rights international legislation across Pacific states, with Vanuatu as an example,

which is “not doing too badly”, according to the above quotation from an EU representative.

While culture and tradition can play a significant role in the upholding of human rights,573

societal practices cannot be a grey zone where human rights abuses continue to occur, and

individuals continue to be at risk, despite signing applicable international conventions. The

role of culture and tradition in community-based DRR is expanded on in upcoming sections

of this chapter.

For one European partner organisation, EU- funded programming is politically orientated

towards the NDMO, but in recognition of the country’s priorities. As one UN agency member

reiterates, advocacy for children through dialogue with government officials can be

immaterial if the content is not in line with the objectives of the national authorities:

“We can do studies, and give literature, we can fund different

components, but of course, within the different areas, it is

following the government’s priorities. Although we can

571


Jalal, P.I., Why do we need a Pacific regional human rights commission? Victoria University of Wellington

Law Review 40, (2009): 193. 573

Jack Donnelly, “Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights,” Human Rights Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1984):

400-419.

203

continue advocating for children, but in most cases we are

following the government’s priorities.”574

Whether surrounding the rights of its citizens or the reduction of disaster risk, national core

priorities can affect relationships with partner agencies. So to, can the manner of

programming on the ground. Donor-financed projects may have certain conditionalities

attached to the funding, such as the safeguarding of the rights of those they work with. As the

UN agency staff member suggests in Figure 6.3, for some states or partner organisations,

certain donor conditions may not be in line with the country’s own policies or underlying core

values. As such, it may be considered as more effective to access funding from donors where

there is no conditionality attached to funding. Accordingly, this can have significant

implications on the donor-country relationship, the direction of the programming, governance

structures at all levels, and community engagement.575

6.3 GOVERNANCE IN DRM IN THE ASIA PACIFIC

The domestic governance structures, channels for DRR implementation, and the chain of

partnerships between actors involved in the DRR programming will have a re-bound effect on

the decision-making for DRR financing. Effective partnerships and structures at a community

level will influence the decisions and core values held at national level, and their subsequent

relationship with donors in the financing of DRR programming.

Levels of capacity of disaster management actors at national level, including the national

disaster management office (NDMO) influence their relationships with partners, whether

adjoining ministries, networks of humanitarian organisations, UN agencies, or local donors.

EU DELEGATION

[...] In Vanuatu there is very low capacity. The ministries are very small, there are few

people, and all the partners are putting pressure on the same three, four people, and

there is not enough staff.

IN-COUNTRY

DONOR

I think there has been some inroads made more recently [...] building better linkages

with the police force on search and rescue [...]or the local broadcaster on emergency

broadcasting studio[...]think it lacks, because it is so small, that strategic oversight and

574


Jan Wouters et al., China, the European Union, and the Restructuring of Global Governance, (Cheltenham:

Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2012).

204

direction to ensure the donor money is being used as well as it can be, but also that the

NDMO is prosecuting some of those big priorities.576

IN-COUNTRY

GOVT OFFICIAL

That is part of our national strategy, making sure we have good partnerships at the

national level. We are now moving into the provinces, establishing our network in the

provinces as well…One thing we are trying to do is to strengthen our logistical

arrangements, with partners, to be able to get to them quickly for response, so we are

working on that [...] You cannot have the perfect system – during a disaster things

could go wrong, it always pays to come up with something to work with.577

UN AGENCY Some donors do not support capacity building – they do not pay salaries, they do not

do training [...]578

UN AGENCY

It’s all fragmented in different sectors, we need to come up with only one legislation

that can be driven by one agency, then maybe the other departments can link up with

other policies, other ministries can integrate DRR / DRM message under that main

legislation.579

UN AGENCY

Mostly government look more at the economic growth, and sometimes they forget the

social components, and maybe when you raise the social components, they say that’s

what tradition is being catered for, and sometimes they may not look at them.580

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

At national level there still needs to be access to understanding and implementation,

but there still needs to be strengthening at a provincial level[...]In Port Vila, we’ve

managed to set up a bit of a network and link with the NDMO, but at provincial level

needs to mirror that set up[...]581

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

In the past, we have found there is always a shortage of manpower, and at the

provincial level, there is no support at all.582

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

It’ll get there – you’ve got silos that are always going to be silos, and they’re not

going to want to play with each other. And you need someone [...]to bring them

together, and to coordinate, and luckily Vanuatu is small enough for that to happen.

But I think that other NDMOs could learn huge amounts from the stuff that is done

here. 583

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

I think they are really willing to help this country through NGOs and other

organisations to strengthen capacity at community level, because they’re the first to

face a disaster and need to react accordingly, but also to strengthen the capacity [...]584

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION You just need to ensure that any development programming is still implemented

within the existing social structures, and the emphasis on behaviour change, who the

576

Interview excerpt, Ausaid, 16/10/2012. 577





Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012.

582 Interview excerpt, World Vision [in-country], 15/10/2012. 583



205

people are that we target[...]We need to support development programming that

allows you to support dialogue and change at the community level.585

Figure 6.4 Views of in-country DRR governance

Notwithstanding feeble governance structures, the Pacific donor representative believes the

state of affairs in Vanuatu to be improving. Despite this positive viewpoint, their statement in

6.4 indicated coordination amongst ministries solely in the context of disaster response, with

little reference to the effectiveness of Vanuatu’s governance and coordination to reduce in-

country risks across the disaster cycle. In addition, the interview participant believed that in a

broad sense, there was a lack of good leadership, resources and complicated infrastructure

within the Vanuatu public sector, which resulted in fluctuating staff levels, and represented

impediments to thorough policy development and subsequent implementation.586

For the EU,

the low capacity within the government ministries, meant staff were consequently under

pressure from in-country humanitarian organisations. While representing one of its core

objectives in building capacity at local levels, through the financing of humanitarian and

DRR programming, the EU was limited by the Paris Declaration for aid effectiveness, and

Accra Agenda for Action,587

in the amount of technical assistance (TA) it facilitated:

“...The Paris declaration, Accra general, which says we

should limit as much as possible our technical assistance [...]

But for us it’s more and more difficult to get TA in projects

because it would mean that it’s implemented by our local

counterparts, but in small countries like Vanuatu, it’s a real

problem. So we are a bit ‘squeezed’ – on the one hand we

would like to put more in, but it’s a bit contradictory to the

new thinking[...]”588

The ‘new thinking’ of the role of capacity building in humanitarian assistance may refer to

the notion of a shift of power to the local implementation partners and government

585


Interview excerpt, Ausaid, 16/10/2012. 587


and Paul Kries, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 283. 588


206

counterparts, but this can lead to issues of retention.589

EU regional, and country strategy

papers are also means for the EU to establish its approach to assisting third countries, yet

often the context or mechanisms for assisting regions or states with disaster management, or

disaster risk management, to enhance DRR programming remain limited. As one DRR

practitioner states, the establishment of DRR donorship within country strategy papers can be

an effective tool:

“You need country strategies to make those types of

programmes work. So if you say, ‘here’s our country

strategy for Cambodia [...] the main risks are these, the main

places where we can add value are these, and this is what

we’re going to do...’ [...] You work out what needs doing,

who else is doing it [...] and you look at how you can

complement it.”590

Such strategies can, firstly, incorporate a comprehensive, cyclical approach to disasters and

DRR programming, to include donor-facilitated comprehensive risk assessments, monitoring

and evaluations. Secondly, the strategies can be a platform for knowledge exchange between

all actors present in the area concerned. While the practitioner rightly believes that ‘to make

that viable that would involve funding on a scale which I don’t suppose DIPECHO is able to

do,’ given the budget of DIPECHO, but would be possible and effective if considered as DRR

under its development arm, which country strategy papers are. Subsequently, this will result

in an accountable, cost-effective approach to establish an understanding of contextual DRR

methodology, present and past programming, and an avoidance of project duplication. In

addition to the accountability of the EU and European partners in the implementation

processes of DRR programming, projects should imply the ownership of processes at a local

level, through the participation of local actors in the project cycle.

“I think one of the problems ECHO has is that whole chain of

partnerships, right down to the ground, because they’re not

589

Roger C. Riddell, “Does Foreign Aid Really Work?” Background Paper to Keynote Address, Australasian

Aid and International Development Workshop, February 2014, http://devpolicy.org/2014-Australasian-Aid-and-

International-Development-Policy-Workshop/Roger-Riddell-Background-Paper.pdf, Accessed: 25 February

2014. 590




207

involved at the ground level. There’s a lack of understanding

by the people who actually are out on the ground of what, and

who, on earth ECHO is, for example, apart from people who

put stickers on everything so they’ve got visibility. And vice

versa, the people in the Commission don’t work closely

enough to know what the grass roots stuff is like.”591

The assurance of local ownership of processes requires the facilitation of partnerships with

local actors in engage them in EU processes, along with an understanding from Brussels, and

regional EU offices of the local mechanisms and actors involved in-country, through

comprehensive knowledge exchange. This is not only required at national level, but

provincial and community level.

As several of the interview participants indicated in Figure 6.4, in the case of Vanuatu, there

is a considerable lack of provincial governance structures for effective reduction of disaster

risks. The role of partner organisations was acknowledged by the NDMO in assisting with

strengthening the logistical arrangements at provincial level, but again, in reference to

disaster response, and preparedness for disaster response, rather than looking to DRR as

cyclical programming to reduce risks throughout the disaster cycle.

One UN agency staff member suggested the fragmentation of governance structures was not

limited to vertical governance structures, but horizontally across ministries. Stronger linkages

with other ministries, and the mainstreaming of DRR throughout ministries to ‘integrate the

DRR/DRM message,’ will assist in linking policy and subsequent implementation.592

In doing

so, the mainstreaming could assist with strains on capacity within the ministry, through role

assignment and effective channels for dissemination of information. Public administrators

must be committed to public engagement and knowledge exchange regarding the governance

structures surrounding national disaster risk management. However, along with stronger

accountability measures such as this, there must also be acknowledgement from government

officials of the potential redefining of the relationship between governance structures,593

591




and Paul Kries, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 283.

208

whether at national, provincial and community levels. The focus of the Vanuatu government

on economic concerns was also raised, where social aspects were often sidelined in place of

economic growth and the role of tradition and culture employed as local mechanisms to cope

with social vulnerabilities. Again, the capacity of ministries involved in social issues becomes

a scapegoat for disregarding social risks, in general and associated with disasters. According

to the UN agency representative, this was a matter which was not limited to Vanuatu, but was

applicable across the Pacific:

“ [...] For example, in the Ministry of Justice and Community

Service, I think if their capacity is well-built and they do what

they are meant to do, then I think the social components will

be catered for. Generally, in this region, social components

are left to the tradition, to the culture, it’s not really

welcomed...”594

Besides looking to culture and tradition as managing social risks, another interview

participant from an in-country organization suggests any alterations to reduce social risks is at

the government level, rather than reducing the risks in question:

“The practice now in Vanuatu is they go for infrastructure,

not really looking at the individual needs of the groups –

disability, children, mothers/pregnant, those who are sick, the

elderly – that has not been taken care of.” 595

The concluding quotation in Figure 6.4 from an international organisation working in-country

stresses any agency involvement at a community level must recognise the existing social

structures in order for DRR programming to be effective. States can fall victim to not

mainstreaming DRR vertically effectively through local to central governance structures. Or

furthermore, states may fail to look at horizontal governance structures, where DRR can be

mainstreamed across various central government entities, or ministries, in order to increase

effectiveness in reducing gaps or overlap in DRR programming.

594


Interview excerpt, World Vision [in-country], 15/10/2012.

209

Bearing in mind, such issues are not limited to Vanuatu, or developing nations. Developed

states considered as having effective disaster management policies, may also lack a

comprehensive approach towards the inclusion of all local actors in the decision making

process, to guarantee effective partnerships in DRR policy and programming. By

guaranteeing local ownership of DRR programming through the recognition of local actors

ensures not only local risks factored into the programming, it ensures subsequent increases of

community resilience. However, an interview with an ECHO staff member in Brussels

suggests that it is a capacity issue within the partner countries – that there is a “deficiency in

that we don’t necessarily have the right partners there. [...] Not all of [our partners] have a

presence in the Pacific [...]”596

The lack of presence of FPA partners, and their local

counterparts to act through, was considered to be a cause for nominal EU involvement in

Pacific disaster response.

While the EU cannot partner directly with local organisations, there is the ability to act

through European agencies, who are able to partner with agencies present in the region and

in-country, forming a chain of partnerships between the EU, European partners, and local

actors. In-country offices of international organisations are working together to maximise

their effectiveness in DRR programming. At a national level, there are multi-stakeholder

groups including international organisations, NGOs, and donors coordinating together in the

field of humanitarianism to maximise effectiveness, and ensure there is not an overlap or

duplicity of actions. For example, the Vanuatu Humanitarian Team (VHT) synchronises its

efforts with the national development office to harmonise the humanitarian, and development

activities, including DRR programming. From the perspective of the Vanuatu National

Disaster Management Office, coordination with the VHT is particularly important in learning

from their responses following a disaster. Yet, the organisations involved in the VHT are

primarily international organisations based in-country, such as Oxfam or Save the Children,

with a lack of inclusion of other local humanitarian or civil society organisations to assist in

the DRR programming. However, as Figure 6.5 suggests disparate views between EU

officials, European FPA partner organisations, and local actors in engaging with other local

actors to assist in the strengthening of DRR governance and partnerships.

596


210

ECHO REGIONAL

OFFICE

[...] The local NGO may be subject to pressure from government but then the local

NGO gets funding from the international NGO, who is then also in a position to

say, “[...] I can only help, I can only be funded if I am working to certain

principles, which would be much more difficult for the local NGO if it had its own

money and working in a totally local environment.”597

EUROPEAN DRR

PRACTITIONER

EU applications are tough unless you’ve got experience in it. If you’re a little NGO

in Fiji, how do you learn how to do it? That’s what I mean about these chains of

relationships – your relationship is with your partner – your relationship isn’t with

ECHO at all [...]598

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

We will always encourage our partners to link up with local authorities. Generally

speaking, it’s not a problem because they have to anyway, or it’s the best way

forward, or they can see it’s the best way forward, even if it’s a bit of a struggle.599

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

[We’re] not present in the Pacific as an agency, and we work in a lot of places. I

think there might be something in Fiji, actually, I have a vague recollection, it’s

not us, it’s a partner organisation in Fiji.

EUROPEAN

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

Our programme staff will help our partners, our local civil society organisations, to

run programmes, they help them to set up programmes, build capacity, training

them and things, and then they help in reporting to the major donors and things like

that. [...] Generally speaking, those partners are more likely than not going to be

Catholic partners, so part of the CARITAS network.600

IN-COUNTRY DRR

PRACTITIONER

We’ve been able to construct rapid assessment teams that have representatives

from each cluster and child protection representatives going out – male and female.

That hasn’t been a formal strategy, what we’ve tried to do is set up a model of best

practice[...] Obviously it’s not perfect, but I think certainly being able to bring

people up to scratch, and make them aware of global standards, global models.601

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

A lot of the other NGOs may not have a child-centred focus, but they’re doing

work that we can support them in with a child-centred approach. One of our

programmes is education and emergencies programme, and we directly support our

counterpart in the Ministry.602

Figure 6.5 The influence of partnerships and local actors on in-country governance

In support of the disparities amongst actors of the influence of local partner agencies, data

analysis of European FPA partners indicated there are several European organisations which

visibly recognise the role of local partner involvement through project outlines on their

597 Interview excerpt, ECHO Information Officer, 25/02/2011. 598






211

websites. Linkages primarily focus on UN agencies, other international organisations, or in

several cases, corporate partners to assist in carrying out FPA activities. Throughout the FTS

data, several projects indicate there are various partners involved, rather than having a

primary organisation in charge of project implementation. In such cases, it is unsure which

agencies are the partnering organisations, making it complex for project evaluation, and

funding trails from EU mechanisms. Despite a limited recognition of partners assisting

project implementation by child-centric FPA partners in the Asia Pacific region, data

collation for this research has shown there is a multitude of local organisations carrying out

activities in the region, with the capacity to assist these European-based organisations.

Collaborations between international and locally-based organisations enhance the legitimacy

of the project where resident organisations often have a better understanding of local milieu.

This can be in terms of the physical hazards faced, the political environment, and the physical

and social vulnerabilities adding to forthcoming risks surrounding a disaster. One interviewee

from ECHO and based in Brussels, describes the relationship between international

organisations and the local NGOs they coordinate with:

“[International organisations] benefit from all the background

information they have accumulated over the years, of

knowledge and cooperation with local NGOs. This can be

easily and speedily put to work. And one other advantage of

working through NGOs, they are not so much under pressure

from local authorities, from local actors, as international

NGOs. International NGOs can always say ‘I have these

constraints, I have these limitations, and I wouldn’t be able to

give you money if I cannot work according to this or that

rule.”603

This conditionality is also conveyed through the upholding of humanitarian principles by the

international organisations.

“We would expect that, the international part of the operation,

the international NGOs would stand its ground. In terms of

603 Interview excerpt, ECHO staff, 10/11/2010.

212

adhering to humanitarian principles, human rights in the

wider sense, and if this is not the case and we have reason to

believe, we would withdraw our funding, it’s as easy as

that.”604

“We do protection, we do in camps, we segregate you know,

women facilities, we give for example for food aid, we give

the money for women, the EU do a lot of things for women,

mainly, women and children. But one thing is to look at

protection and another thing is to refuse providing aid

because the government doesn’t ensure human rights. This

we don’t do, even if the government is an unlawful dictator

like it was in Burma, we still try to go and help people.”605

In addition to assisting with the upholding of FPA partner humanitarian obligations, the

support of local organisations assists in the administrative aspects of project implementation:

the assessments, monitoring, evaluation, and subsequent dissemination of the project

outcomes. The chain of partnerships between European and local agencies will be discussed

in further details in Chapter VI, in reference to the Asia Pacific.

Several of the European organisations were unaware of their partner organisations in the

region, and a suggestion of reliance on existing networks of partners at a local level. One

DRR practitioner working in a European international organisation was unsure of how to

establish a new partnership with a local organisation:

“The ins and outs of how that process works is probably

different for every single place and it’s a lot to do with

networks, and local relationships[...]I’m not entirely sure how

you approach new partners[...]

…

604 Interview excerpt, ECHO staff, 10/11/2010. 605


213

That’s why it’s good that if we worked a long time with

partners, which work over a long time with communities, we

should get a good clear picture of what their hazard needs are.

But if you want to go into a new area, then I can see that

would be a stumbling block.”606607

The statement from the ECHO regional office and one European partner organisation in

Figure 6.5 highlights the influence of in-country political pressure on local humanitarian

organisations. Despite the complexities of providing humanitarian aid in politically unstable

countries, ECHO remains neutral according to its mandate, acting through the international

and local partner organisations. The reliance of ECHO on partnerships with recognised,

international organisations is clear in the preliminary statement, where local organisations and

their activities can be at risk when working with local authorities. One EU regional staff

member describes the impact on DRR programming:

“...In the Philippines there has been a lot of violence and the

problem is each time someone changes, we will never know

what will happen with [...] The problem is it’s a long process

to have things approved [...] The Department of Education

have been requested to be much more involved, and to certify

much more which is very good, but to certify they have some

standards [...]” 608

While the European FPA organisations support their local counterparts to link with

government disaster management authorities, DRR programming can become compromised

due to changes in governance. Along with potential political influences on the decision from

donors and international organisations to avoid partnerships with local organisations in the

Asia Pacific, interview excerpts in Figure 6.5 from European and in-country organisations

suggest a perception of a deficiency of capacity from local organisations and governments in

the capacity of local actors in the administrative obligations for DRR programming. In

606 Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/09/2012. 607 Interview excerpt, CAFOD, 10/09/2012. 608

Interview excerpt, ECHO DRR Coordinator, 25/02/2011.

214

addition, there is the outlook from European partner organisations that their local counterparts

may require training of specific programming objectives, such as child-centric DRR

activities. Both scenarios require, according to these interviewees, the influence of

international organisations through capacity building at a local level to assist local

organisations to engage in DRR governance and decision-making processes. Such

empowerment of local actors in the policy formation and implementation of DRR

programming is important in their understanding of processes. Yet the commitment from the

EU and the international organisations suggests knowledge transfer, rather than knowledge

exchange. While knowledge transfer as part of education can be applicable to development

assistance, reliance on knowledge transfer shifts the focus off local ownership of processes

through the engagement with communities to discuss vulnerabilities and subsequent risks

they face. As such, knowledge transfer goes against the idea of a holistic approach to risk

reduction, and a rights-based approach. In the example of Vanuatu, there are increases in

networking amongst humanitarian and development agencies to, which suggests moves to

more effective DRR programming, including information sharing. But as one individual

working to adjoin local implementing agencies, and donors in community-based DRR in-

country suggests despite their efforts to avoid duplicity and increase DRR effectiveness, this

often does not happen.

“Generally as it stands most agencies will have a bilateral

relationship with their donor – so when it comes to reports,

and successes, that doesn’t tend to be widely shared.”609

Moreover, public dissemination at a local level for DRR is limited. The portals can be difficult

to operate and focus on provision of information for practitioners, rather than general public

access to DRR information.

“[Public access to information] is available, but not readily

available. Some of it is, some of it isn’t. There are moves

afoot to try and make information more available through

things like the DRR/Climate Change portal, where a lot of

609

Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012.

215

information’s being uploaded… [But] it’s a rabbit warren.

Good for practitioners, it’s not a community resource. It’s a

repository of so much information, it’s a good resource for a

particular target market, but in a place like [Vanuatu] it’s not

really an effective tool for public accessibility.”610

Information provided by government agencies, or in-country organisations, again, tends to

focus on preparedness for response and recovery, with diminished dissemination of

information of the general project outcomes and reduced vulnerability.

“The public would get it via the NDMO. The met office611

will let you know the cyclone’s coming, the NDMO will give

you warning. In terms of that public information messaging,

when we’re training at provincial level, and grass-roots level

they’re aware of what the warnings mean, what the

messaging is, so it’s standardised.” 612

However, there has been recognition from in-country agency representatives of the

importance of general knowledge exchange and public access to DRR project implementation

and project outcomes. A UN agency representative suggested,

“[Disaster] Reduction and mainstreaming into the day-to-day

systems. I’ve been working in humanitarian systems for years

and one of the things I was told was when you leave work

and you go into the field, you leave with the understanding

you may never come back.”613

In addition, knowledge exchange through public dissemination assists local adjoining

communities in understanding DRR approaches, which may be of use or contextualised to

their own risks and subsequent risk reduction. Community and regional information

610


Vanuatu Meteorological Service 612



216

dissemination on DRR approaches and risks faced helps to reduce risks outside of the project

periphery. Neighboring communities or countries gain knowledge on risks faced, mitigation

strategies, and lessons learned from the project, and can apply where appropriate to their own

context.

National governance structures influence the effectiveness of DRR policy and subsequent

implementation, as well as those structures at a local level. In the context of Vanuatu,

community disaster committees (CDCs) under the guidance of in-country offices of

international organisations, act in conjunction with the NDMO.

IN-COUNTRY

GOVT OFFICIAL

Even when we are setting up the community disaster committees, we also account for

them. They have representation in that committee – one coming from the women, one

coming from the youth, one coming from the disabled, so we want to fit all the

interests in that committee so we don’t leave people out. Of course, children are not

included because they will not be able to make decisions but we try to cover their

interests as well by incorporating women[...]614

UN AGENCY

We need to connect, formally, the community disaster committees up to the area

council committees, at the provincial level, so that they are endorsed and formalised

by the province[...]So you need to really strengthen this one before you have the area

council level, and from here, the provincial level to the national NDMO. 615

UN AGENCY

The system has changed now, while they’re still there maintaining their role as

traditional leaders, the projects are coming in to create new committees, so you have

the community disaster committee, but these committees should recognise the

traditional role of the chief and give them the official status in these committees so

that they are still recognised as true traditional leaders. If the projects are oversighting

this, then we are also falling into the same trap as also not recognising the leadership

role. Of course the church also plays an important role here, but we also need to keep

the same respect and recognition for the traditional governance system[...]of course

the youth are part of it. Children – we haven’t taken that on board but that’s a good

point. The CDC’s also identify the vulnerable groups of society also need to be

considered in decision-making, so we are mindful of that so don’t worry…616

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION I think custom and law are usually at loggerheads, meaning having equality and

women’s participation is usually still quite a new concept in some areas… In each

614




217

community there’s the CDC, and that’s made up of all the important people – some

have women, most do not. 617

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

So a gender balance is very important in DRR. But it really depends on the

governance of the community, and sometimes you’ve got women chiefs, and CDC

chairmen which are women[...]who are absolutely taking the role in account. 618

Figure 6.6 Community Disaster Committees

The divergence in DRR governance at national and provincial levels aforementioned needs

also to be extended to link with the CDCs.

“We managed to get three agencies together with the NDMO

and have an agreement about the structure of the CDC, the

roles and responsibilities of the CDC, the information giving

to the CDC, and the reporting back to the NDMO…So we got

them to first acknowledge the role and function of provincial

government but also the role and function of NDMO.

Everything has to have a reporting up and reporting down.”619

As one UN agency representative affirms in Figure 6.6 the formal recognition of the role of

CDCs in the national disaster management strategy will assist in strengthening the DRR

policy and programming at provincial and national levels. However, for this to be successful,

exchange of information across these levels is essential. Agencies coordinating with the

CDCs, and provincial and national actors, can assist in bridging this gap.

Actors included on the CDCs vary among the communities. As some of the interview

quotations in Figure 6.6 suggest, there are disparities of representation from the different

social factions on the CDCs. There are suggestions within Figure 6.6 the CDCs need to

further acknowledge traditional structures, to draw on the roles of chiefs in coordinating

community-level disaster activities. Others advocate for stronger representation of women,

those with disabilities, the elderly, and youth as particularly vulnerable groups. One DRR

programmer indicates the conflict between culture and the upholding of international human

rights law, in specific reference to gender concerns. Indeed, the rare participation of women

617



Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012

218

in decision-making at a local level is emphasised. For many communities, the influence of

women within the CDCs is not considered to be appropriate. A representative from an in-

country international organisation reiterates:

“That’s the role of the government when they go into these

communities to explain there has to be this – women need to

have a role in decision making in their own community, and

at the beginning of that whole education process - that women

do have something to bring to the table in regards to DRR [...]

DRR is actually very much based around the home, and the

mother, and the child outside of the home[...]”620

According to this statement, the role women play in society influences community decision-

making surrounding DRR programming. The quotation suggests it is the role of the

government in supporting the voices of women in community programming, along with

education of communities in the empowerment of societal factions to be a part of decision

making at a local level. However, education suggests knowledge transfer from organisations

or national authorities, rather than dialogue and engagement utilising existing structures to

consider the roles of each member of society, and their capabilities in reducing the risks they

face surrounding disasters. Yet, as indicated in the Figure above, according to the in-country

government official, and one UN agency representative, this does not extend to the opinions

of children, despite the fact in other communities, the voices of children are considered as

credible and can engage in community decision-making.621

6.4 COMMUNITY-LEVEL DRR PROGRAMMING

Observations of engagement of community groups in committees as community disaster

governance structures are transcended to consider core community values and traditions

which impact on the effectiveness of DRR programming at a local level.

620


Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction, Views from the Frontline: Beyond

2015, (Middlesex: GNDR, 2013).

219

IN-COUNTRY

DISASTER MGMT

OFFICE

When we are doing programmes and activities, we always consider the full members

of the community. We acknowledge that not only able people are living in the

community but different grouping of people, disadvantaged people, we take into

consideration all members of the communities.622

PACIFIC DONOR

I don’t know but I think these organisations are working in locations where there is a

demand and where there is buy–in, not where they’re not willing to work with these

organisations so there is a level of engagement which needs to be negotiated prior to

any work on the ground. I haven’t heard of any instances where communities have

rejected assistance or protested against what has been done but I think there is work

afoot to establish strong networks or champions within communities to try and broker

those kinds of activities.623

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

It’s everybody’s business. And what they do in development, they need to integrate

DRR, so education you need to integrate hazard knowledge into formal curriculum, in

the school level, the school you build are quite disaster resistant to the main hazards

the country can face…That is why DRR needs to go everywhere, through the

community level, the health centre, the mama/ papa, church, everyone. Everyone who

can bring some message to be better prepared, is valuable, and can save lives.624

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

Traditionally if you look at how the communities are set up, there is some kind of

network, some kind of governance, so when in the event of such happenings, like a

disaster strikes, what do people do. So there are some of those that are in place, but I

would say that a lot of those would need to be reviewed […]625

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

I think it would be a traditional way where people are looked after in their own

communities, people would always take care of other people, they would have the

heart to look after other people.626

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

What we’re really working hard on is really working with community across board to

understand all the different types of abuse, and neglect etc etc – what are the risks,

who are the perpetrators, what should happen… the whole gamut. We’ve just begun

that process, and we’re going to be working with the church groups, working with the

Police, working with the provincial government, in the communities, more

importantly and most importantly, themselves.627

Figure 6.7 Community-level DRR programming

Existing community structures, as reflected on above, requires a comprehensive approach to

community DRR programming. Agency of all community actors in decision making is gained

by making use of community assets and existing community infrastructure. Turner and

Khondker state that collective vulnerability is reduced through “human agency and organised

622


Interview excerpt, AusAID, 16/10/2012. 624


Interview excerpt, World Vision [in-country], 15/10/2012. 626

Interview excerpt World Vision [ in-country] 15/10/2012. 627


220

social responses.”628

Indeed, as one international organisation representative explains, “the

community structures that are in place, already existing, are the most effective means for

doing any disaster preparedness engagement – supporting any disaster preparedness activity.

And then again for any engagement at a community level, those structures are paramount.”629

While this is an effective approach in maintaining local governance structures the context of

DRR in this statement is, again, limited. This particular quote reinforces the oft view of DRR

formation with the focus on the preparedness of communities to respond to a disaster, rather

than a comprehensive view of disaster risk. This is vital in cases of low impact, or slow onset

risk, which may be unacknowledged.

For donors involved in facilitating community level DRR, the Pacific donor quoted in the

Figure above looks to the relationship between the partner agencies and local communities in

DRR engagement. The essence of the quotation surrounds the role of organisations to

‘broker’ DRR programming, in the sense of a business transaction between two parties, with

the view that the ‘negotiated’ levels of engagement from communities, have not led to the

rejection of support from partner organisations.

The engagement of donors and partner agencies active in communities requires a two-way

dialogue with communities and individuals. It is a positive inclusion of community actors in

DRR programming processes, but the view of one in-country organisation seeks to address

community vulnerability through the education of community individuals, with little regard

for the engagement with community factions and individuals to decipher what they consider

to be risks. One representative of an in-country organisation in Figure 6.7 believes that when

it comes to vulnerable groups, such as children, traditional community networks function to

address vulnerabilities.

“ I think we need to advocate more our risks, and the impacts

on the vulnerable groups, and make it very plain and we can

address that through project initiatives at a community level.

So we can actually bring it down and actually identify the

628

Bryan S. Turner and Habibul H. Khondker, Globalisation East and West, (London: Sage Publications, 2010),

150. 629


221

different roles of each vulnerable groups or the different roles

that the communities – the structure within the communities.

Because the governance system you have the leadership from

traditional to village councils to all sorts of communities …so

these issues can actually be addressed at that level.”630

In addition, knowledge exchange with the various groups, can also assist in identifying the

capabilities of vulnerable groups, such as children. Rather than focussing on weaknesses, the

strengths of such groups can be recognised in order to support community resilience through

the acknowledgement of social capital. This shift in mind-set to acknowledge both physical

and social vulnerability and capability within communities leads to the discussion of

integration of modern and traditional, or, cultural influences on community DRR

programming. McEntire emphasises the need to look beyond physical vulnerabilities to social

vulnerabilities, in addition to recognising the capabilities of communities in reducing risk.631

In his work on social justice, local-level adaptation, and sustainability, Valadez argues that

due to the diversity of circumstances faced, the notion of adaptation confirms the capabilities

of individuals or communities to respond to changes in the social and physical environments,

632 as exemplified by local-level activity throughout the disaster cycle. Observations from

actors involved in DRR at an international, national and local level, of an integrated approach

to DRR methodologies are represented in the following Figure.

PACIFIC DONOR

My own observation is that the people of Vanuatu are very resilient and have

withstood millennia of crises and disasters […] but these people are still very strong

and capable of withstanding whatever comes their way, and without any donor

assistance, have survived for many hundreds of years. So I think we’ve got a lot to

learn from them and to build on the traditional coping mechanisms they’ve got in

place, rather than imposing something on them that’s not appropriate for the context-

and I think that is happening in some cases, but probably not happening enough. 633

EUROPEAN-LEVEL They may actually already be aware of what we would call scientific issues, but they

may describe them a different way, which again is another slightly false distinction

630


David McEntire, “Understanding and reducing vulnerability: from the approach of liabilities and capabilities.

Disaster prevention and management 21, no. 2 (2012): 206-225. 632

Jorge M. Valadez, “Adaptation, Sustainability, and Justice,” in Global Community, eds. Randall E. Osborne

and Paul Kries, (Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008), 260-261. 633


222

DRR

PRACTITIONER

which we get between scientific knowledge and local knowledge…Because what we

call science today develops from what, I guess, would have been once called local

knowledge once upon a time.

EUROPEAN-LEVEL

DRR

PRACTITIONER

We work with older people so great historical information on past events and things

like that, but you have to cross-reference it with science and cross-reference it with

other sources of information 634

UN AGENCY

Previously, 10 years ago […] the people back in the communities won’t accept the

changes, anything that comes in new or modern climate change. […] but now with the

realities in place, they can see that because the modern science also agrees with their

traditional knowledge… 635

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

The traditional response is one of resilience […]. I think their ability to adapt is

perhaps being compromised, and that’s perhaps due to broader changes in reliance on

food as well as the impacts of climate change on food and water security custom.636

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

I think that’s where that standardised messaging has come through. There has been a

series of workshops about early warning and traditional knowledge about disaster

preparedness – preserving food, cutting palm trees etc. There’s more work to be

done.637

Figure 6.8 Integration of traditional and contemporary approaches to

community-based DRR

One of the primary themes interlinking the statements from these DRR actors is the view of

prevailing levels of resilience, and the perception of communities subjected to high levels of

risk as inherently vulnerable. Recognition of established practices within communities, rather

than a focus on introducing modern techniques to reduce disaster risk, assists in achieving

sustainable resilience. An integration of both scientific and traditional methodologies into

community-based DRR programming, recognizes both the role of science, and traditional

approaches. One DRR practitioner cited in Figure 6.8 acknowledges there is overlap with the

methodologies, but the difference lies in the analysis following the evidence base:

“[…] Once you have a scientific explanation for something,

you understand the connection between an observation

(animals behaving peculiarly) and a process (a volcanic

eruption). But you understand that process. […]” 638

Indeed, given the disaster-related social aspects and cultural values often embedded in

634






223

existent community structures, a more comprehensive view of risk is attained - an attitude

which contemporary methodologies can lack, and global strategies towards disaster risk can

learn from in addressing the social vulnerabilities within a community, rather than a focus on

the technical risks associated with disasters. 639

In recognizing the role of practices employed

by a community acknowledged actors which do not conventionally hold influence in local

decision-making and processes, in a contemporary setting. For instance, the involvement of

the younger and older generations in DRR programming can contribute to sustainable DRR

programming. As one European FPA partner suggests, an inter-generational approach to

disaster risk within a community can complement integrated modern-traditional DRR

strategies through cross-learning:

“ What we’ve kind of moved towards is a vulnerable group

approach, or an inter-generational DRR approach, more

recently[...] which is basically children and older people

working together cross-learning across the generations, bring

in some scientific involvement into that, looking at traditional

knowledge, as well as children[...].”640

The subsequent empowerment of children and the senior members within a community

encourages sustainable DRR programming as the traditional knowledge is maintained by

younger generations, while simultaneously can be complemented by modern technologies and

methodologies. Yet the role of children and child protection in DRR programming in

addressing risks and recognising their capabilities has not been fully acknowledge at a global,

national or local level, leading to competing views of child protection as indicated below.

EU regional office

[…] Protection in our case that would be disaster preparedness and livelihood in an

emergency context but we all agree this is a priority very strongly coming up and we

need to position ourselves on DRR […]

PACIFIC DONOR […] Here in Vanuatu, a lot of synergies, including child protection, which we must

integrate into all of our activities here in Vanuatu.641

EUROPEAN-LEVEL We tend to take the whole community approach, rather than specifically children […]

639

Mercer et al., “Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities,” Environmental Hazards 11,

no. 2 (2012): 91. 640



224

FPA PARTNER The projects that we are doing tend to be school based, generally. Yea and in some

regions, children aren’t even involved in all […] Varies from region to region. And

also from partner to partner. Some partners will have a focus on a specific thing, such

as children, and others disability is their focus [...]642

UN AGENCY

…The risks especially and the exploitation of children [...] I don’t think that in

Vanuatu that would be a problem because the culture plays an important role in this

respect where you have most children have lost their parents and whatever may be

[…] they are all taken care of by the community and the families, because of the

communal values that are still between the cultural values in between the village.

What becomes very tough is the schooling, because schooling is becoming more

expensive and these vulnerable groups, especially children who have lost their

parents, will not afford to go to school and that’s common in Vanuatu anyway [...].643

UN AGENCY

They have traditional approaches within their systems, in the construction, in the

growing of their food, in the care for their children. Of course within their own

capacities they protect their children, they take care of them. They love their children

really, within their normal traditional capabilities, and they protect them somehow.

Sometimes they do funny, funny things to them in the name of protecting them and

reducing risks surrounding disaster, but at the end of the day, when you ask them the

ultimate goal, is to protect them and reduce the risks. That’s why some of them don’t

even send them to school, because they say, ‘the school is too far, I can’t have my girl

walking that far,’ and for you you’re thinking, ‘no, no this girl should go to school.’ 644

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATION

It has to be balanced, but it has to be child-focused as well. There are different schools

of thought, so it has to be child-centred but I think that the child-centred approach

runs the risk of focussing too much attention on the child, at the expense of not

focussing also on the caretaker. There’s no resilience for that for children. That child

and the caretaker, so I think it has to be a balanced approach.645

IN COUNTRY DRR

PRACTITIONER

I guess in short - government agencies, national NGOs, international NGO staff, and

the NDMO have very little understanding about what protection is – in particular what

child protection means, and so that is going to require a lot of work to ensure that

there are holders and deliverers of humanitarian aid, we can actually do it to global

standards…646

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

Child protection in emergencies is an area which we’re only just coming to terms with

how we can support the government to do that. They’re aware of it, and they have

looked at incorporating protection issue-type questions in a rapid assessments, and

we’re specifically looking to support them with our child protection staff which have

had training in child protection in emergencies, and more generally child protection

issues. I mean, many of the issues to do with child protection in an emergency are the

642





Interview excerpt, Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012

225

same as outside of an emergency, it’s that they just become exacerbated or increased. 647

IN-COUNTRY

ORGANISATION

We’re only just at the stage where we can take people on the journey of what child

protection is[…]I think that people are much more understanding of child-based DRR,

because it’s physical protection of a child. […] What we’re hoping to achieve is

working with communities across the board to understand all the different types of

abuse, and neglect etc– what are the risks, who are the perpetrators, what should

happen… the whole gamut. We’ve just begun that process, and we’re going to be

working with the church groups, working with the police, working with the provincial

government, in the Communities, more importantly and most importantly,

themselves.648

Figure 6.9 Child Protection in community-based DRR programming

As suggested in several aspects of this thesis, questions remain over the mainstreaming of

child protection throughout DRR programming, or alternatively, to promote child-centric

DRR programming. The interview participant from the EU regional office describes

protection in a broad sense, to be mainstreamed across DIPECHO activities, but in reference

to disaster preparedness and immediate actions surrounding a disaster, rather than across the

disaster cycle. For the donor quoted in Figure 6.9 the approach seems to be child protection is

implemented throughout all activities in-country, rather than having a specific focus on

children.

As an in-country international organisation staff member suggested in Figure 6.9, for national

governments, the acknowledgement and understanding of governments of what represents

child protection at all levels of governance. As alluded to, child protection strategies

surrounding a disaster can mirror those already in existence in ‘peacetime,’ but the processes

involved need to be able to endure any collapses in governance structures, when a disaster

occurs, so that risks to children are not augmented. Effective DRR governance surpasses

protectionism in disaster responses and risk assessments, to the more complex matter of the

mind-set of actors involved in DRR processes, of what child protection represents, and the

acknowledgement of children, their risks and capabilities in DRR policy and programming. It

is also a case of recognising the need to ratify the international conventions which many

countries have signed up to in the protection and empowerment of children in order to uphold

child rights:

647



226

“The UNCRC – 142 countries, I could be wrong, probably a

bit less than that, have ratified the UNCRC, and the last

report Vanuatu submitted, the last review the UNCRC did

was in 1999. How can you say that you’re holding people

accountable? This is the UN who then spends a huge amount

through UNICEF, UN Women etc in this country and there is

no accountability, there’s none, so I would like to think that

there is that active element of pushing for advocacy of child

protection and child rights through these clauses but I’ve

never seen it enforced.”649

In addition to the recognition of children in donor and government strategies, the holistic or

child centric approaches of international organisations active in-country have implications on

child protection and the recognition of child rights at a local level. One partner agency cited

above states the preference of a nationwide approach to DRR programming. With the

acknowledgement of variations across regions, this can at times be to the detriment of child

engagement in some regions, as the quotation suggests. Such a policy from agencies active in

promoting DRR programming in developing countries can marginalise child risk, or indeed,

child agency in DRR programming. Furthermore, minimal recognition of children in DRR

programming due to a whole-country approach to domestic project diffusion can neglect the

role of other community actors in child-related DRR actions, such as the roles of teachers, in

protecting as well as educating children,650

and caregivers in relation to child protection and

child agency. There is also a suggestion of the focus on school-based activities, but this can

lead to a focus on risk education for children, rather than encouraging dialogue with, and

amongst, children. In addition, as indicated by the UN agency, a focus on school-based

programming can be ineffective in some locations, where for some families, particularly

located in rural areas, there are logistical and financial justifications children to attend school.

In reality, the decision for parents living far from the nearest school not to send their children

to school may be rationalised in the protection of their children.

One in-country DRR practitioner believed an informal strategy on child-centric risk

649


Ben Wisner, Let our children teach us! A Review of the Role of Education and Knowledge in Disaster Risk

Reduction (Bangalore: Books for change, 2006.)

227

assessments, formed by child protection representatives assisted to “bring people up to

scratch, and make them aware of global standards, global models,”651

in relation to child

protection. While positive in the comprehensive approach to risks to children, this is an

example of direct knowledge transfer. International models are transferred to a local context,

by representatives from international organisation with limited dialogue from local actors to

decipher whether such a model is culturally relevant, or could be enhanced by local customs.

In the context of child protection, child-centric organisations, such as Save the Children assist

ministries and other organisations to provide a child-centric perspective on risk, and DRR

activities.

The opening statement from one participant based at a UN agency in the above Figure 6.9

suggests the focus on immediate risks, and the focus of DRR activities in the preparation to

respond to a disaster, with a lack of inclusion on the slow onset risks such as child

exploitation or abuse surrounding a disaster, again, leading to the approaches of various DRR

actors involved in DRR programming of what child protection represents in protecting

against both immediate and slow onset risks, as well as the physical and social risks which

children may face.

“ […] It’s our duty, our obligation to express and analyse such

issues so that when they are doing this we say, ‘look yea this

is very good, but you must be very careful, because tourism

can promote trafficking. You are doing ABC and it has caused

this in such a province. We can do this, but also mitigate, and

then we create projects which mitigate the impact of what the

government maybe likes, bringing them back to the trivial but

related things.” 652

The acknowledgement of the empowerment of children in DRR decision-making and DRR

processes can also lead to child protection and a comprehensive approach to child risks.

Agency of children generates recognition from all actors of the risks children face, and their

651



228

capabilities in risk reduction throughout the disaster cycle. In addition, an individual or

community’s right to expression in the risks they face. By recognising the right to expression

during the phase of assessment, aspects of community capabilities can be recognised, and

thus communities and individuals are empowered to act. This empowerment underpins the

human security model as an element of praxis, where the capabilities of community factions

assist in the execution of community-based DRR strategies.


Recent years have shown an acknowledgment by the international community of the

destructive nature of disasters and the influence of climatic changes on the occurrence of such

disasters in the region. This has resulted in a peak in DRR policy formation by states as

foreign policy initiatives to assist developing countries in enhancing their own disaster

management strategy, with a particular focus on DRR as an important element of such a

strategy. While previous chapters have demonstrated this to be the case for the EU in

recognising DRR in its external action, the EU’s sense of responsibility in terms of

humanitarian and development donorship is considered by some to have geographic contours.

In his geo-political analysis of EU external action, Keane considers that in many cases, the

EU’s ‘backyard is prioritised over and above more distant crises.’653

As such, the reduction of

risks to the Asia Pacific, or sub-regions of South-East Asia and the Pacific, is often

subordinate to neighbouring countries or regions in terms of EU external action, despite

having implications on the EU’s presence and donorship in the region.654

Moreover, given the

level of disaster risk faced by the Asia Pacific, stronger ties to the region through knowledge

exchange surrounding DRR could assist in developing a more holistic approach to disaster

risk from both the European Community, and its partners in the Asia Pacific.

However the increases of donorship in assisting partner regions, or countries, through

humanitarian and development assistance can be complex, particularly surrounding the

653

Keane, Rory Keane, “EU Foreign Policy Motivation: A Mix of Human Security and Realist Elements,” in A

decade of Human Security: Global Governance and New Multilateralism, eds. Sandra J MacLean et al.,

(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 39. 654

Martin Holland and Malakai Koloamatangi, “Governance, Capacity and Legitimacy: EPAs, EBA and the

European Union’s Pacific Regionalism after Cotonou,” in Redefining the Pacific? Regionalism Past, Present

and Future, eds. Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer (Aldershot; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited,

2006), 101-120.

229

promotion of human rights, and rights based approaches. Barkin suggests the international

context of core values promoted by human security and the responsibilities of donors to

protect those at risk at a local level, brings with it concerns of the transference of donor

perspectives surrounding human rights, which do not reflect the local context or customs.655

Alternatively, Carmalt and Dale refer to the essence of human rights law, emphasising the

universal respect for the principles of human dignity, upheld by both international and

domestic actors in policy and practice in a disaster context.656

Sen emphasises that

engagement between different cultures on what represents human rights can bring about self-

reflection on the principles underpinning policy and practice despite, or even because of,

geopolitical disassociations.657

In terms of legislating DRR, broadly speaking Asia Pacific countries prone to disasters have

established and strengthened disaster management strategies, whether through formal

strategic legislation or institutional capacities. However, as this chapter assessed, governance

structures at a national level may not always coincide with channels for DRR at a community

level. To assist with DRR policy formation and implementation in the region, the role of

international organisations, and local civil society actors is important in bridging the gap

between the community and government. Yet Wilderspin et al believed there is the concern

that an increase in funds from donors to assist with DRR programming will not be absorbed

due to the lack of local partners or their capacity to carry out increased DRR projects.658

Not

only is the partnership between the EU and its European partner organisations important in

the implementation of DRR programming, the chain of partnerships linking with local

organisations is equally valuable in ensuring local DRR processes protect and empower local

actors, and are culturally appropriate. This is impacted by the roles of donors, local

governance structures, and elements of local culture, where the perceptions and effectiveness

of a rights-based approach to realising DRR at a community level, in-country, and in the Asia

Pacific.

655


2013), 95. 656

Jean Connolly Carmalt, and Claudine Haenni Dale, “Human Rights and Disaster.” in Routledge Handbook on

Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, eds. Wisner et al. (Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012), 63. 657

Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development 6, no. 2 (2005): 162-163. 658

I Wilderspin et al., Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming in DG ECHO’s humanitarian

actions: Final Report (Brussels: European Commission, 2008), 27.

230

“This is something that is new in the region659

– most

government planners or development programmers don’t

really understand the essence of addressing these issues, and

even for DRR based on the rights-based approach, and I think

that this is quite important…”660

As the above interview excerpt indicates there is hesitation from government officials and

DRR practitioners, who work in regions such as the Asia Pacific, to recognise a rights-based

approach to humanitarian and development policy formation. In addition to the obstacles

represented in previous chapters which indicated ambiguity from various levels of

governance in the application of a rights-based approach to DRR programming, the

unfamiliarity of incorporating social vulnerability and the assurance of the protection and

empowerment of all social factions as part of humanitarian and development policy and

programming hinders the effectiveness of DRR programming, and sustainable levels of risk

reduction. Nevertheless, it can be understood that the human rights-based approach can

represent a holistic outlook on community-based DRR.661

Some believe a focus on the human

security model can focus too much on the individual, with a disregard for long-term impacts

in achieving sustainable reduction of risks. As one agency representative suggests:

“Most of all development is not based on the human-centred

approach, it only looks at one thing and one angle, and not

considering the greater, wider scope of how this project is

benefitting or affecting people.”662

In reality, the utility of analysing lexis and praxis in DRR policy formation and subsequent

programming assists in ensuring the security of all individuals through the sustainable

implementation of DRR at a local level. As core to the model of the application of human

security to reduce the risks of individuals surrounding disasters, the primary objective of a

rights-based approach to DRR is for individuals and communities to be free from risk, and for

659

The case-in-point during the interview is in reference to the Pacific, as a sub-region of the Asia-Pacific. 660


Cheria Anita, Sriprapha Petcharamesree & Edwin, A Human Rights Approach to Development, (Bangalore:

Books for Change, 2004). 662


231

the acknowledgement of their capabilities,663

in DRR programming, through the protection

and self-empowerment of all societal factions. The recognition of this basic objective of DRR

programming at a local level is required and can be realised through the intertwining of all

those active in DRR partnerships: from the EU as the initial donor, the international

organisations, in-country governance, through to the individuals at risk, not least, children.

Without explicit references to human rights, current DRR policy and programming at a local

level, and measures to make them more effective, surround a rights-based approach.

Specifically, accountability measures, effective governance and engagement with all actors

will make communities and individuals less vulnerable. A lack of recognition of rights-based

DRR programming can have broad repercussions whether a lack of accountability and

transparency surrounding the funding, negative impacts on community social structures, from

employment through to the protection of children.

In sum, this chapter has discussed the complexities of employing rights-based approaches in

local donorship in the Asia Pacific. Chapter VI made use of interview data to question

donorship approaches of the EU in comparison to other donors in the Asia Pacific region. It is

not a case of one donor having more or less of a rights-based approach than another, as

donorship will vary depending on the aspect of the rights-based approach in question – both

in terms of a donor’s choice of lexis and praxis. It is as much a case of donor objectives and

their classification of risk and what represents vulnerability, as it is a case of financing

programming, partnerships, and their activities at a local level.

This chapter has looked at the partnerships between the EU and local actors in local DRR

processes in order to increase the effectiveness of DRR programming, in particular child

protection measures. The EU's role in Asia Pacific DRR programming is obscured by its

objectives in external action praxis. The overarching goals according to EU policy lexis in

ensuring visibility at a local level, through the financing of cost-effective humanitarianism,

which is conditional to its core value of human rights, is subject to effective mechanisms at an

institutional level.

663

Amartya Sen, “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development 6, no. 2 (2005): 151-166.

232

Supplementary to EU institutional effectiveness, is the assurance that subsequent local praxis

through its partnerships is accountable and transparent. A rights-based approach to DRR

through the core components of human security praxis can assist in overcoming these

obstacles towards more effective DRR partnerships, and ensure a translation of the rights-

based approach as the underlying lexis in EU external action policy to praxis at a local level.

It has shown that with regards to child protection, there are measures at all levels to assist in

protecting children both in general, and surrounding disasters. Yet as the data suggests, there

are differences between the global and local views of what is considered to be child

protection as part of a rights-based approach. But the common ground, regardless of the

approach, is capitalising on the existing social structures in order to reduce risk:

“For people–it’s survival. You don’t suddenly think there’s a

massive new bag of risks for the children here, I think you

need … unless you’ve experienced the situation, before you

have no idea how the situation is going to play out, it’s just

having the networks and the knowledge basically [...]”664

664


233

CHAPTER VII

REFLECTIONS ON RESEARCH FINDINGS &

PROSPECTIVE PATHS

______________________________________

7.1 INTRODUCTION

To formally present this research within the relevant fields of study, the previous chapters

depicted the intricate relationship between donorship, and the rights of individuals to

protection and agency in the formation of DRR policy and programming. As the final chapter

of the thesis, Chapter VII contains distinct reflections on the outcomes of this research

presented through the findings from the preceding chapters. The conceptual outcomes reflect

on the dominant aspects of the human security model, in the recognition of the risks and

rights of individuals in the implementation of DRR at all levels of governance. The research

methodology, based on the human rights impact assessments of DRR programming, reviews

how the EU can translate the interconnectivity of risk and rights from policy to practice, to

ensure greater effectiveness of DRR processes. Data trends in the use of the lexis-praxis

methodology encompass the empirical findings of this research. Collectively, these elements

of the research denote whether the EU and Member states are upholding their obligations as

duty bearers in recognising the risks and rights of those they are to protect surrounding a

disaster. The analysis concludes with a discussion on whether the practical elements of the

human security model can assist the EU’s DRR policy implementation to be an effective

element of EU external action. To end, this chapter indicates features of the future direction

of this research. It presents challenges of cohesive EU policy implementation, the global

directions of DRR programming, and child protection. Despite such limitations, this chapter

will reveal channels representing future applications of this research methodology and

theoretical framework.

234

7.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The thesis questioned the effectiveness of the EU’s DRR partnerships in the Asia Pacific, in

protecting children, and ensuring child rights are upheld. An intricate conceptual framework,

based on the underlying themes of vulnerability and rights from within human security,

assisted in answering the primary research question for this thesis. The practical elements of

the human security model have meant the facets of EU donorship and DRR partnerships have

been scrutinised to review its DRR strategy. Namely, how the EU has influenced child

protection measures in the Asia Pacific region. The supplementary questions of this thesis

supported this primary enquiry. They challenge the current location of DRR in EU external

action, the approaches of Member States, channels for EU donorship in child-related DRR

programming, and differences between the strategies of the European Community and those

within the Asia Pacific. The previous chapters have responded to the research questions of

this thesis with the following fundamental conclusions. Firstly, there is a wide variation

amongst global strategies towards the manifestations of child risk in DRR policy formation.

The second assertion from this research surrounds the fundamental role of human rights in

lexis and praxis achieving effective DRR policy formation and subsequent programming, as

encouraged by the model of human security. The consequent lack of acknowledgement of the

roles of children in DRR policy and programming becomes discernible through the human

rights impact assessments undertaken throughout this thesis. Actors involved in DRR

programming verbalised the perceived obstructions to operationalise child rights throughout

the disaster cycle. The final reaction to the research questions emphasises implementation

barriers hindering effective partnerships in EU donorship in the Asia Pacific region, and the

recognition of the rights of those engaged in DRR processes at all levels of governance.

Existing literature exploring the role of children in DRR policy implementation often focus

on the vulnerability of children, with a disregard for ways to reduce said vulnerability, such as

through recognising children as social capital and acknowledging their capabilities,665

as

means of protection. In addition, the role of donorship in DRR implementation has not fully

been explored within an academic context. DRR activities in donorship can often be

perceived as not harmonious with the principle, and implementation, of human rights, as

665

Brenda D. Phillips et al., Social Vulnerability to Disasters. (Boca Raton: CRC Group, 2010), 161.

235

demonstrated in the interview data from EU bureaucrats. In particular, this is due to the

institutional compartmentalisation between the EU’s humanitarian and development agencies,

rather than viewing rights-based DRR programming as a way of bridging the gap between

humanitarianism and development assistance, as this research has shown. In addition, a

rights-based approach reflects a comprehensive view of risk, where both physical and social

risks are acknowledged and incorporated into all aspects of disaster risk reduction, and

throughout the disaster cycle. This is despite a common focus within the field of disaster

research and policy implementation, on disaster response, and preparedness to respond.

Manifestations of Risk

Theoretical reflections place social vulnerability amongst traditional disaster-related theories.

Social vulnerability has been examined in its reduction of community-based risks, to provide

a holistic approach to vulnerabilities and fast and slow onset risk. The linkages between social

vulnerability and praxis channels represent a pragmatic approach to assuring the rights of

those at risk through DRR programming. With the common focus from policy makers and

practitioners on vulnerabilities surrounding the immediate aftermath of a disaster, and long-

term sustainable reconstruction, or general development, bridging the gap between these two

phases has become extremely important in ensuring there are not grey areas created where

risk is enhanced. A holistic approach to risk, both physical and social risks, and fast and slow

onset risks is central to the assurance of the rights of the most vulnerable, and leads to more

effective DRR policy formation and subsequent programming.

This thesis has shown that the manifestations of risks children face in an everyday context are

exacerbated when there is a disaster. The amplification of risk demonstrates the need for DRR

implementation to encompass the entire disaster cycle. To choose to delineate risks as

prospective or corrective, in the view of aligning DRR activities with prevention and response

phases, isolates risks as prospective or corrective. The perception of DRR as a tool for the

effective reducing risks within vulnerable communities is just, but the insular view of

segregating programming into corrective and prospective risk reduction to consist of disaster

response, and the preparedness to respond, is an limited view of the embodiment of risk. In

doing so, risks can become marginalised and not mitigated against, thus the possibility of

risks occurring can increase. This affects DRR implementation in both policy and practice.

236

The possibility of gaps in the reduction of risk increases, and existing levels of vulnerability

remain.

The role of lexis and praxis in operationalising child rights

The human security model has been fundamental in recognising the role of children in

effective programming to reduce risks of communities and individuals at risk of natural

disasters. The focus of the model on protectionism and empowerment assisted in highlighting

the role of all actors involved in DRR programming to reduce child vulnerability. A rights-

based approach to DRR practice allows for the protection and empowerment of individuals,

alongside a holistic approach to risk, to recognise the social vulnerabilities of societal

factions. The following Figure demonstrates the interconnection between social vulnerability

and the implementation of risk reduction throughout the disaster cycle.

Figure 7.1 Implementation process through a rights-based approach

Foreign policy practices based on the human security model can assist community-based

DRR practices to be more recognisant of the rights of individuals at risk, in order to reduce

vulnerability. One must be mindful of the basic objective of DRR in creating a ‘culture of

resilience,’ as established by the UNISDR,666

but what of the right to resilience? The UNDP

is advocating for a more rights-based approach to DRR implementation, but how is a holistic

approach to risks, in combination with a holistic approach to rights to be achieved? The rights

of children under the UNCRC align with the core rights of the human security model of

protection and empowerment of individuals at risk. The specific child rights underpinning

humanitarianism through the UNCRC directly link with the disaster cycle, highlighted in

Figure 7.2

666

UNISDR, Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to

Disasters, (Geneva: UNISDR, 2005), Article 2.17.

237

Figure 7.2 Future-proofing through risk-rights interconnectivity in DRR

implementation

The underpinning of human rights as the basis for humanitarianism can link the disaster

cycle, and ensure the protection and engagement of all within a community, while remaining

culturally relevant. The Figure above aligns the core aspects of DRR practices to be achieved

at all levels of governance, and the core rights of children identified under the UNCRC,

aforementioned. 667

The implications of which, rest in the preservation of the responsibilities

of donors to uphold these rights, both in DRR policy and implementation practices

throughout the disaster cycle to cover all disaster risk. With these responsibilities and rights in

mind, effective DRR praxis of actors can align with the disaster cycle in order to protect and

give individuals agency to protect themselves. Indeed, agency of individuals can initiate self-

empowerment and, as a long-term preventative measure, lead to consequent protection from

risk.

With full recognition of cultural values and traditional practices of those in prone areas, DRR

programming through a rights-based approach takes into consideration local concepts of

protection based on local values and customs of how they protect themselves, their families,

their communities.

667

Articles 2,3,6,12 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child correspond directly to humanitarianism and

donorship to recognise a child’s right to non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the right to life,

survival and development, and the right to participate.

238

“I just think it’s a given that you need to work with the

community, and work with them and bring together

traditional coping mechanisms with new improved ways of

doing things, and don’t make that assumption that they’re not

resilient enough.” 668

In addition, there is a need to consider how local communities perceive the roles of external

actors in achieving this protection – whether NGOs, states, national & international agencies

and donors. As such, effective community-based DRR praxis needs to centre on dialogue and

knowledge exchange amongst the various actors in order to recognise both local customs and

existing social systems, and contemporary approaches to DRR programming, based on the

needs and capabilities of all community actors, and assurances of their rights throughout

decision-making processes.

As indicated in the opening quotation of this thesis, protection does not have to represent

specific indications of what is in place to respond to a disaster, but effective governance

systems to promote a protective environment to reduce individual or collective vulnerability.

In order to avoid ineffective DRR praxis, a comprehensive view of vulnerabilities and

subsequent risk is required, in addition to acknowledgement of the capacities of vulnerable

groups, such as children. This brings about the discussion of whether to mainstream child-

centric risk reduction throughout DRR programming, but with the potential effect of

marginalising the risks children face. Alternatively, child-centric DRR programming

highlights the risks faced, but a focus on the isolation of child risk can segregate children

from a holistic community approach to DRR programming. The analysis from data

representations in Chapters IV, V, and VI, has shown that approaches to children within DRR

programming do not have to demarcate the two ideologies of mainstreaming and isolation of

children in policy and project implementation.

A two-pronged approach to the implementation of child-related DRR activities can be

achieved. A rights-based approach to child resilience ensures child vulnerability, and the

specific needs of children are distinguished in policy formation. Risks surrounding

668


239

vulnerability or needs are lessened through DRR programming. DRR programming may be

implemented horizontally across thematic areas under specific governance measures, or

vertically, through the various governance structures. In doing so, child risks are not

marginalised, or segregated from community-based DRR practices.

In addition, the focus on education in DRR programming as the primary means for child

resilience emphasises the limited view of reducing child vulnerability, and ensuring child

rights. The corresponding rights for education are represented in Figure 7.2 through the right

to development and knowledge transfer. This thesis has demonstrated the constraints of

knowledge transfer, as the term describes a one-way transmission of knowledge or education,

in the prospect of child development. Protectionism through education establishes a heavy

focus on vulnerability, with a potential disregard for the capability of societal groups to

enhance community resilience. Knowledge exchange, however, indicates the

acknowledgement of dialogue with children as a means for better comprehending child

vulnerability and child capabilities through DRR programming.

This thesis has demonstrated that protectionism and empowerment as the two core elements

of the model should not be mutually exclusive, but intertwined under a rights-based approach,

to ensure the agency of individuals in order to reduce vulnerability. This deficiency in DRR

policy and programming of the capacities of children to assist in reducing disaster risks is

evident in the lexical analysis employed in this thesis where global and domestic policies

demonstrated a focus on the vulnerability of individuals and communities, but little

acknowledgement of these societal factions as social capital, able to assist in the effective

reduction of disaster risk.

Effective implementation of EU-facilitated DRR praxis

Europe is becoming increasingly recognised as an advocate for its values, particularly its

action towards the acknowledgement of human rights. In the view of Manners, the EU’s core

political norms that are most visibly expressed as an international actor, along with peace,

include liberty, rule of law, democracy and human rights.669

However, these values can often

669

Ian Manners, 2002, as cited in Maurizio Carbone, “Normative Power and Political Dialogue: The European

Union in the South Pacific,” Asia-Pacific Journal of EU Studies 4, no.1 (2006): 30.

240

contradict one another, where the pursuit of democracy may cause instability and disrupt

peace.670

Nevertheless, the EU is meticulously intertwining its common values into its foreign

policy. The concept of Normative Power Europe is insufficient in determining the interaction

between states and the translation of core values like human rights in foreign policy. It

remains theoretical in essence, and does not incorporate practical applications of those values

in foreign policy, unlike the human security model through the application of the lexis-praxis

methodology.

This thesis has depicted practical measures to address the lack of harmonisation throughout

the European Community. That is, EU and Member State DRR policy formation, as well as

providing means towards increasing effectiveness in EU DRR practices. For the European

Parliament, the EU’s 2009 DRR strategy highlighted ambiguities in the EU’s DRR strategy.

The strategy also showed conflicting opinions on DRR within the EU,671

reflected in the

variations of what DRR represents amongst European Parliament committees, and how to best

implement directives which mirrors to these areas of review, reflected on in Chapter II.

Likewise, Chapter II’s internal examination of the EU’s executive arm, the European

Commission, revealed an institution at odds, containing ineffective processes for facilitating

DRR programming. To determine whether the European Council has politicised its aid

programmes amongst its Member States, Chapter IV scrutinised policies where lexical

analysis showed a lack of harmonisation for child rights and child protection measures.

Indeed, this finding aligns with the 2009 Strategy which denoted a strong lack of DRR

policies from Member States and the slow integration of DRR into development strategies.672

In response, the 2011 implementation plan promoted enhanced coordination with Member

States as an area in need of improvement, alongside increased dialogue with third countries to

implement DRR strategies into policy frameworks. Yet Chapters V and VI depicted praxis

from the EU and Member States to facilitate partner activities at a local level, require

significant work to implement policy objectives in practice, to reduce the risks children face

670

Nathalie Tocci, “Who is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Union and its Global Partners,”

Centre for European Policy Studies, 2008, http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1661.pdf, Accessed: 13 October 2009. 671



European Commission, 2009,4. 672

Ibid, 4.

http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1661.pdf

241

surrounding disasters. Overall, the European Community’s donorshop in external action, as an

entity and individual state, demonstrated a disregard for the recognition and implementation

of the rights of children specifically, despite illustrations of human rights as an overarching

principle of the institution, its adjoining Member States, and partners.

As the current EU Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty has created increased opportunities and channels

for the EU to address these implementation issues of EU DRR praxis. Indeed, the

mechanisms created for EU external action can assist in aligning Member States to reduce the

risk of politicisation of aid, to resolve internal institutional compartmentalisation, and advance

the upholding of human rights in external action. At the time of writing the Lisbon Treaty

approaches the five year milestone since ratification, and since, the EU’s external action

policy has seen many adjustments in its delivery. Joint mechanisms created under Lisbon may

help to limit grey areas and the compartmentalisation of DRR programming, or alternatively

too much involvement from directorate generals may render them less accountable towards

the impact of their actions at a local level. In-country perspectives from local partners have

shown that the role of EU delegations do not assist with increasing the effectiveness of DRR

or upholding of rights, as shown through Chapter VI, thus the role of in-country delegations

under the EEAS, in increasing dialogue with partner countries on DRR programming and

human rights, is another area under the Lisbon Treaty which requires further attention. As

such, the EU’s external action strategy is ever evolving, so perhaps it is too soon to review the

full impact of the Lisbon Treaty on DRR and its place within EU external action.

Nevertheless, EU and Member States’ foreign policy objectives and existing processes should

not lead to the politicisation of aid delivery, or specific measures towards child protection.

International, EU, and national law depict their obligations to uphold the rights of those at risk

to protection. Human rights, maintained through a rights-based approach are neutral with

respects to political decision-making in the delivery of humanitarian and development

programmes.

242

In the case of child protection from EU in the Asia Pacific, Table 7.1 demonstrates the core

methodological and conceptual objectives of this research. It demonstrates human rights can

be an operative tool for measuring the effectiveness of the DRR policy implementation.

RESEARCH

DATA ANALYSIS TOOL

MEASURE OF HUMAN

RIGHTS / HUMAN

SECURITY

RESEARCH

METHDOLOGICAL

FINDINGS

POLICY PROFILING

European Union

Policies

Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/POLICY

LEXIS ACCOUNTABILITY

PROTECTION

EMPOWERMENT/AGENCY Member State

policies

Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/ POLICY /

LEXIS

INDIVIDUAL LEVELS OF DISASTER-RELATED DATA

European financial

profiles

Data isolation

Long term

involvement

Pattern Correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

GOVERNANCE

ACCOUNTABILITY EU- FPA partners

(general and child-

centric)

Data isolation



/ those affected

Data isolation

Long term

involvement

Pattern correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS PROTECTION

EMPOWERMENT/AGENCY

COMMUNITY-BASED DRR

PROGRAMMING Asia Pacific DRR

projects

Data isolation


INDIVIDUAL LEVELS OF INTERVIEW DATA

European Union

bureaucrats

Data isolation

Pattern Correlation

PRINCIPLE/ POLICY /

LEXIS

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

ACCOUNTABILITY

PROTECTION

EMPOWERMENT/AGENCY

COMMUNITY-BASED DRR

PROGRAMMING

European DRR

practitioners

European FPA

partners

Donors / UN

agencies / In-

country practitioners

/

TABLE 7.1 Research findings from human rights impact assessments for lexis and

praxis in EU DRR policy and programming.

243

In the ‘Research Methodological Findings’ of Table 7.1, the principles and implementation

channels of the human security model are applied to the facets of the research data set. The

correlation between the areas of the research data and the methodological findings therefore

demonstrate how this research has reviewed the EU’s policies and partnerships to

demonstrate areas where rights-based methodologies align with DRR programming, under

human security. Some human security elements such as governance, and accountability

measures, are already in place at an institutional level, but need to be strengthened, or drawn

on, to improve effective DRR policy and subsequent programming. This can be achieved

through the existing results-based approach of the EU in facilitating humanitarian and

development assistance. This research did not aim to quantify rights in its impact

assessments, but use the analysis undertaken in previous chapters of the lexis in policy and

praxis channels, to demonstrate the need to harmonise (not standardise) approaches of actors.

The harmonisation of approaches, and a comprehensive view of risks throughout the disaster

cycle, assists in ensuring the rights of those at risk underpins the actions of duty bearers, and

in doing so, makes DRR decision-making at a global, European, and local level effective.

Human rights-based impact assessments at a European level demonstrated the recognition

that effective, and sustainable, DRR praxis requires long-term programming, through

development activities, which in theory, incorporate human rights. Sustainable DRR practices

will not be achieved through short-term DRR facilitation through donorship. As indicated

throughout this thesis, limitations within EU foreign policy and process towards partner

selection, monitoring and evaluation, financing and project timeframes, are ineffective, and

are emphasised by short-term reporting policies. One European Commission staff indicated

acknowledgement of the need for long-term assistance in donorship:

“...the international community can almost never show before

and after pictures, well at least within a year because it takes

a lot of time, because there are a lot of difficulties, because

this is much more tricky ...”673

673


244

Yet the financial facilitation by the EU of DRR programming does not reflect these internal

observations. Institutional barriers and geographic disparities between Europe and the Asia

Pacific indicate the view that increased levels of DRR financing in the region is not cost-

effective, despite the facilitation of DRR actions through peripheral development

mechanisms. Instead, the mainstreaming of DRR throughout institutions is insufficient,

despite EU advocacy for partner countries and partners to assume DRR mainstreaming at

regional and country levels. Aside from institutional barriers, the internal and external

coordination of DRR activities through EU regional and national offices hinders the effective

implementation of the DRR programming.

Domestic commitments to humanitarian aid from the Member States are increasing, to the

point that EU policy implementation could learn from its domestic counterparts. Yet while

individual cases of national DRR integration into rights-based foreign policies exist, there is

yet to be cohesion amongst all EU donors. In addition, policy analysis as part of the human

rights impact assessments of EU DRR policy and programming indicated a concentration of

funding of agencies located in large Member States, specifically larger international

organisations, demonstrating the need for a wider perspective on donorship of European

organisations in smaller Member States, which may assist the implementation of EU

humanitarian or development assistance through specific capabilities or networks in external

regions. It is not solely harmonisation within European policies and EU donorship needed to

increase the effectiveness of DRR programming in regions such as the Asia Pacific, but the

cohesion amongst local donors active within the region. Dialogue between donors is vital for

the effective implementation and financing of humanitarian and development activities, and

the avoidance of duplicity.

Recognition from the EU of existing obstacles to support community-based DRR

programming, such as the need for more effective financing channels for sustainable DRR

programming at a local level, derives from a lack of opportunity for partners to engage with

donor agencies on policy and barriers to funding channels. Indeed, more effective dialogue

with donor agencies and partners, whether organisations or partner governments, can lead to

prospective channels for more cost-effective EU engagement in humanitarianism and

development a local level.

245

It is likewise a matter of identifying leadership, vertically and horizontally, throughout

governance structures in order to achieve a rights-based approach to risk assessment,

identification, management and response, in the reduction of disaster risk. But in addition to

local leaders, it is also necessary to respect the opinions of those within a community, which

may not be the trailblazers but have an equally important role in promoting and advocating

for policy change and effective implementation at all levels of governance – local, provincial,

governmental, and global.

7.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

As denoted at the outset of this thesis, the primary limitation in undertaking this research is

the lack of data surrounding EU-facilitated DRR partnerships. This continues to be a concern,

as has been established through the data collation and analysis throughout this thesis, where

partners have clarified the barriers to effective implementation of EU DRR activities, with the

following future implications. Primarily, limited data accessibility on DRR programming

leads to potential changes to EU partnerships, due to barriers at all phases of DRR project

management. This remains a complex impediment for effective DRR action, with severe

repercussions with organisations choosing not to align with the EU. Not only are there

existing barriers to obtain and continue to receive EU funding, but in addition the physical

presence of the EU throughout the world, and partnerships between EU staff and

organisations, can often be ineffective due to the lack of understanding of the local settings in

which partner organisations carry out DRR programming. This lack of comprehension of the

local setting can be in relation to the local setting, governance structures or customs, which all

play important roles in the effectiveness of DRR implementation.

The second more abstract challenge for effective EU DRR implementation, which is due to a

lack of data on EU-facilitated DRR programming, surrounds the lack of underlying

accountability and transparency of EU-funded activities. These core values of accountability

and transparency in DRR activities, the EU stands to uphold through global and EU-centric

external action policies. Labadie believes that appraising post-disaster recovery programming

primarily concerns the expectations and accountability of what the programming set out to

achieve, while evaluating all forms of results – including time, emotional and social

246

capital.674

Yet accountability and transparency are two principles that DRR praxis under

DIPECHO which fail to be maintained due to compartmentalisation. It is not disputed that

external action needs to be divided internally, but it is a question of how it can most

effectively cover the disaster cycle, and the linkages with development assistance, in addition

to ensuring its rights-based principles of accountability are reinforced without falling into

grey areas between, and within, the divisions. In doing so, it is a matter of short term and long

term gain in the implementation of DRR programming.

Perhaps this second issue of DRR data accountability is hampered by a third influential

factor, the dissemination of DRR data. The responsibilities within the donor-partner

relationships remain vague and unproductive in the goals of reducing disaster risk.

Dissemination on the financing of DRR via online portals and project documentation remains

imprecise due to the unclear procedures of the input of the information relating to DRR

project funding, or outcomes. Physical documentation of project outcomes from humanitarian

organisations remains imprecise and broad. A strong sense of ownership of the initial

objectives and future directions leads to the disclosure of generic outcomes, and the inability

for other donors or agencies active in the country to build on previous projects, in order to

maximise the cost-efficiency of DRR in communities or region.

The outcomes of this research represent a multi-layered source for future research on aspects

of EU external action, and the partnerships through which it carries out its policy objectives

overseas. In addition, this thesis has demonstrated how a rights-based approach to DRR can

be effective in recognising human rights throughout all facets of DRR decision-making. The

data components of the human rights impact assessments, as the primary element of research

methodology to generate this thesis, can be used in the future applications of this research.

The research data of this thesis can be built on through the rights-based impact assessments to

follow the EU’s financing of DRR following the end of data collation. In doing so, the future

research will assist in monitoring changes of the implementation of the EU and Member

States DRR strategy.

674 John R. Labadie, “Auditing of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities,” Disaster Prevention and

Management 17, no. 5, (2008), 583.

247

The application of the research methodology of this thesis can be equally valid in reviewing

transformations in global DRR strategies, whether at a multinational level through the

revision of the UN Hyogo Framework Agreement in 2015, the strategies of other

international organisations, regional, or domestic DRR strategies of both developed and

developing nations. The future applications of this rights-based research methodology

encompass the following potential objectives. Namely, to identify and evaluate institutional

modifications with the EU’s humanitarian and development mechanisms in charge of DRR.

In doing so, this will highlight whether DRR has been mainstreamed, or isolated, within the

EU’s external action objectives and processes. Furthermore, whether the implementation

barriers cited in this thesis have been reduced, to increase the effectiveness of dialogue, and

engagement with partner agencies. Most importantly, to examine whether a rights-based

approach to the EU’s DRR strategy has been achieved in the transcending of human rights

principles in policy lexis to DRR praxis in external action, in the recognition of a

comprehensive approach to the sustainable future-proofing against child risk and of child

rights.

While the novelty of the research methodology and the rights-based foundations of this thesis

have provided potential innovative avenues for DRR-related research, as well as tangible

DRR strategies, the sustainable future-proofing of child rights through EU-facilitated DRR is

hinged on the EU’s position on human rights, and the application of the core principal of

human rights in its external action, including DRR programming.

“People say DRR’s failed as a paradigm, if you look at it on

paper, why should it have failed? It’s got it all there – it’s a

bit clunky in places, but basically it’s got everything you

want, so why aren’t people doing it? Why don’t they think

it’s adequate? And the reason why they don’t think it is

adequate is because of the people that are doing it.”675

A level of self-reflection is necessary from within the EU on the principle of human rights,

the portrayal of rights in its policies, and the filtration of its esteem for upholding human

675


248

rights through DRR policy implementation and partnerships at a local level. Engagement

amongst actors ensures self-reflection on the levels of efficacy and deficiency of policies and

subsequent implementation through all levels of DRR governance. Knowledge exchange with

partners identifies risks and capabilities of all actors involved at all levels of governance in

DRR processes. A consequent rebound effect through advocacy and lobbying for change

throughout the chain of partnerships on decision making in DRR policy and processes can

feed up and down, in order to achieve a change in mind-set. Does this represent a shift of

mind-set from the donor and its partners on human rights? Perhaps a more inclusive

engagement with partners, and harmonisation of approaches from actors, will enable a change

in outlook on rights-based approaches, and the capacity to achieve cost-effective facilitation

of DRR programming as part of humanitarianism and sustainable development.

249

APPENDIX I

MAP OF THE ASIA PACIFIC

_______________________________________________

This research refers to Asia Pacific countries situated within the Pacific Rim area. The region

is otherwise known as the ‘Ring of Fire’ given its particular susceptibility to many forms of

natural disasters. This thesis covers those countries situated on the Ring of Fire throughout

the Pacific and South East Asia.

The Asia Pacific countries included in this study are: Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Cook

Islands, Fiji, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, New

Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands,

Thailand, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam.

It can also be subject to manmade disasters, specifically conflict scenarios, whether interstate

or intrastate. This analysis of the Asia Pacific combines the regions of South East Asia and

the Pacific as regions which face similar natural and, at times, manmade crises situations.

These countries represent settings where the EU is involved in varying degrees of DRR

programming, thus provide for an attractive area of analysis of the EU’s DRR strategy as part

of its external action.

250

APPENDIX II

COMPONENTS OF THE RIGHTS-BASED

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

___________________________________

In this Appendix, you will find profiles of the components of the rights-based impact assessments as outlined in

the methodology section of Chapter I:

Research data Analysis tool Measure of human rights / human

security

POLICY PROFILING

1. European Union Policies Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/POLICY

LEXIS

2. Member State policies Content Analysis

Pattern correlation

PRINCIPLE/ POLICY /

LEXIS

INDIVIDUAL LEVELS OF THE DISASTER-RELATED DATASET

3. Natural disaster data / those

affected

Data isolation


Pattern correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

4. European financial profiles

Data isolation


Pattern Correlation

PRACTICE / PRAXIS

5. EU- FPA partners (general

and child-centric)

Data isolation


6.

Asia Pacific humanitarian

organisations (general and

child-centric

Data isolation


7. Asia Pacific DRR projects Data isolation


1. LIST OF EUROPEAN UNION INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL POLICIES FOR POLICY

PROFILING AND LEXIS ANALYSIS

INTERNAL

DIRECTORATE

GENERAL YEAR THEME POLICY NAME

JUSTICE 2006 CHILD An EU strategy on the rights of the child

JUSTICE 2007 CHILD EU guidelines for promotion / protection of child rights

JUSTICE 2010a CHILD Communication on child exploitation

JUSTICE 2010b CHILD Roadmap – Communication on the EU strategy on the

rights on the child 2011-2014

JUSTICE 2011 CHILD EU agenda for rights of the child COM(2011)60

ECHO 2009 DRR A community approach on the prevention of natural

and man-made disasters COM 2009)82

251

EXTERNAL

EU AGENCY YEAR THEME POLICY NAME

DEVCO 2005 DEV European Consensus for Development

DEVCO 2009 DEV EU policy coherence in development assistance

DEVCO 2011 DEV Increasing the impact of development policy

DEVCO 2012 DEV Social protection in EU dev cooperation

ECHO 2004 DRR Disaster Prevention and Preparedness

ECHO 2007 HA European Consensus for Humanitarian Aid

ECHO 2009a DRR Supporting DRR in developing countries

ECHO 2009b DRR Preparedness in the Pacific

ECHO 2009c PARTNER Framework Partnership Agreements

ECHO 2010a HA EU civil protection

ECHO 2010b HA FPA adjoining documents

ECHO 2011 DRR DRR in developing countries Implementation plan

EEAS 2003 CHILD EU guidelines on children and armed conflict

EEAS 2008a CHILD A special place for children in external action

EEAS 2008b CHILD EU action plan on child rights in EU external action

EEAS 2008c CHILD Working document on children in emergency and crisis

situations

EEAS 2010 CHILD Com staff working document on combating child

labour

EEAS 2011a HR Human Rights benchmarks for EU external action

policy

EEAS 2011b HR Joint communication on human rights and democracy

at heart of external action

EEAS 2011c PARTNER Structured dialogue for efficient partnership in

development assistance

EEAS 2011d PARTNER Corporate Social Responsibility strategy 2011-2014

EEAS 2011e PARTNER Guidelines for Non-state actors

EEAS 2011f HR Instrument for democracy and human rights (EIDHR)

strategy paper 2011-2013

EEAS 2012a HR EU strategic framework and action plan on human

rights and democracy

EEAS 2012b PARTNER The roots of democracy and sustainable development - engagement with civil society organisations in external

action

252

2. MEMBER STATES’ FOREIGN POLICIES FOR POLICY PROFILING AND LEXIS

ANALYSIS

MEMBER STATES YEAR THEME POLICY

Austria (a) 2007 Partner Non-governmental organisation cooperation

Austria (b) 2009 HA International Humanitarian Aid

Belgium (a) 2007 HA Improvement of the effectiveness of Belgian

governmental bilateral aid

Belgium (b) 2008 CHILD The rights of children in development cooperation

Bulgaria - - -

Cyprus 2009 DEV CyprusAid Brochure

Czech Rep. (a) 2010 HA/DEV Development Cooperation and humanitarian Aid Act

Czech Rep. (b) 2010 DEV Development cooperation strategy of Czech Republic

2010-2017

Denmark (a) 2005 CHILD Children and young people in Danish development

cooperation

Denmark (b) 2010 HA Strategy for Danish humanitarian action 2010-2015

Denmark (c) 2011 PARTNER Crosscutting monitoring of civil society strategy

Denmark (d) 2012 HR A right to a better life

Estonia 2011 HA/DEV Strategy For Estonian Development Cooperation And

Humanitarian Aid 2011–2015

Finland (a) 2010 DEV Finland's development cooperation

Finland (b) 2011 DRR DRR checklist

France (a) 2010 HR Human Rights and Democracy

France (b) 2011 DEV Development Cooperation: A French Vision

Germany (a) 2010 DRR DRM guidelines

Germany (b) 2012 PARTNER Global partnerships

Germany (c) 2012 HA Strategy of the Federal Foreign Office for

Humanitarian Aid Abroad

Germany (d) 2013 DRR Disaster Risk Management for all

Greece 0 0 N/A

Hungary 2006 DEV Hungarian International Development Policy

Ireland (a) 2007 DEV Adapting to Climate Change

Ireland (b) 2008 PARTNER Civil society policy

Ireland (c) 2010 HA Humanitarian relief policy

Italy 2010 DEV Dev coop (2010-2012)

Latvia 2011 DEV Dev coop (2011-2015)

Lithuania - - -

253

Luxembourg (a) 2009 HA Action Humanitaire

Luxembourg (b) 2011 DEV Strategie generale

Malta 2007 DEV Overseas development policy

Netherlands (a) 2007 HR Human rights and dignity for all

Netherlands (b) 2012 DEV Aid for people in need

Poland 2011 DEV Development cooperation act

Portugal (a) 2009 DEV Development cooperation strategy

Portugal (b) 2010 DEV Multilateral cooperation

Romania 2010 DEV New donors can make a difference

Slovakia 2009 DEV ODA strategy

Slovenia 2008 DEV International development cooperation (2008-2015)

Spain 2009 DEV Development director plan (2009-2012)

Sweden (a) 2008 DEV Development policy

Sweden (b) 2010 HR Human Rights in development - change for freedom

(2010-2014)

Sweden (c) 2011 DEV Peace and security in development (2011-2014)

UK (a) 2006 HA Humanitarian Aid

UK (b) 2006 DRR Reducing the Risk of Disasters- Helping to achieve sustainable poverty reduction in a vulnerable world

UK (c) 2011 DRR Defining disaster resilience

The following tables outline the variables included in the content analysis of the EU and Member State policies

to explore the lexical references to internal policy decision-making regarding children and DRR. Additionally,

content analysis assisted in analysis of the practical measures of EU and Member States towards rights-based

DRR in the Asia Pacific, through the model of human security.

LEXIS CONTENT ANALYSIS COMPONENTS (EXAMPLE SHOWN)

PRAXIS CONTENT ANALYSIS COMPONENTS (EXAMPLE SHOWN)

APPROACH RISK/ACTION TWDS UNCRC SITUATION COHERENCE DRM

EU / COUNTRY YEAR POLICY TITLE/ THEME NEEDS RIGHTS CHILD RIGHTS UNCRC Art 2 Art 3 Art 6 Art 12 CRISIS DISASTER MS EU DRR DPP DRM

ECHO 2010b PARTNER FPA adjoining docs 41 49 1 1 36 0 0 10 0 80 39 1 0 3 9 8

CHILD

COUNT

HUMAN SECURITY PARTNERSHIPS W NSAs ACCOUNTABILITY ASSESSMENT TYPE

HS

LOCAL

OWNERSHIP GOVERNANCE BILATERAL REGL MULTILAT PARTNER CSO PRIVATE REPORTING

LESSONS

LEARNT CAP IMPACT NEEDS RISK VULN AP SEA ASEAN PAC PIF

0 1 2 2 8 0 898 0 14 115 1 0 0 18 7 0 0 0 0 2 0

ASIA-PACIFIC

254

3. DONOR-PARTNER FINANCIAL PROFILES (EXAMPLE SHOWN)

Relevant aspects of data from the Global Financial Tracking System outlined in the Methodology section, was

added to the natural disaster dataset (Component 3 above) in order to correlate the natural disaster data with the

financial contributions of the EU. This data was important to verify the institution involved in financing project.

However, this data is reliant on the reporting of this data by the donor and partner institution, which may not

always occur, or fully reflective of the financial commitments or paid contributions. This data was appropriate

for analysis of DRR-related activities to confirm the irregularities of the EU institutional structures, which

undertake DRR programming.

ECHO FRAMEWORK PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT PARTNERS (EXAMPLES SHOWN)

The table below represents an example of the data collated of ECHO partners from 2009 along with an update of

the dataset in 2011 to allow for changes in partnerships, and activities. As such, data analysis undertaken in

Chapter III represents partnerships up until 2011. There has been a revised list of partnerships published in 2013,

requiring future examination to represent the amendments of partnerships between ECHO and European

humanitarian agencies.

Key Added 2011

Bold = child

focussed activities

European NGOs

EU commitment on website

(ECHO/EuropeAid

Country NGO Child focus Country/ Event Activity for event

Austria CARE ÖSTERREICH Y Bangledesh - 2007 Sidr Water, immed aid, medical

2009 Indo EQ temp accom

Laos Ketsana 09 hygiene packs

Myanmar Nargis 08 immediate aid

East Timor

Gen developmt, peace, child rights

Pakistan 05 EQ emergency aid

Pakistan 2010 flood

tents, blankets, emergency needs, medical

4. NATURAL DISASTER DATA SET (EXAMPLE SHOWN)

This dataset for the human rights impact assessment includes details of any natural disaster event taken place in

the decade of data collection and within the Asia Pacific region. The GLIDE network database assisted with

collation of this data, as mentioned in the Methodology section of Chapter I.

Donor Appealing Agency Emergency t it le YEAR

USD

committed/contr

ibuted

Descript io

nEUR Decision date

IASC Standard

Sector

Destination

Country

Contribution

statusReported by

European

Commission

International Federation of

Red Cross and Red

Crescent Societ ies

FIJI - Cyclone - January

2003

PAC 2003 451,127 In

response

to IFRC

Appeal -

420,000 6-Feb-2003 M ULTI-

SECTOR

Fiji Paid

contribut ion

Donor

PAC Emergency Date Year

Country affected Figure

Affected / HH / DD EU org Amount

Contribution status Currency Agency Description

PAC Volcano 11/06/2005 2005 PNG 10000 A ECHO 200000 IDP SHELTER EUR IFRC SHELTER+HA

255

5. ASIA PACIFIC DRR PROJECTS (EXAMPLES SHOWN)

Data explored through the Asia Pacific DRR Portal represented aspects of DRR projects in the Asia Pacific. This

data identified the EU mechanisms financing the projects, along with geographic and thematic trends of DRR in

the Asia Pacific.

Key Child focus Pacif ic EC EDF

**Bold = PINs

with ECHO

funding (DRR

strategy)

Project Title Status Start Date End Date Countries Lead Org Partner Org Donor(s)

Total

Funding

(USD)

Consolidating community capacity

in child-focused disaster

preparedness and response Completed 2007-Feb-15 2008-May-14 Viet Nam

Save the

Children UK None European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection (ECHO)$485173.00

Building Resilience of Communities

to Recurrent Natural Disasters,

particularly Flash Floods in the

Upland Areas of Viet Nam Completed 2007-Feb-15 2008-May-14 Viet Nam

United Nations

Development

Programme

(UNDP) Centre for International Studies and Cooperation (CECI), Central Committee for Flood and Storm Control - Viet Nam (CCFSC)European Commission Humanitarian Aid & Civil Protection (ECHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)$550589.00

Pacif ic HYCOS - Hydrological Cycle

Observing Systems Current 2007-Jan-01 2010-Dec-31

Cook Islands; Micronesia, Federated

States of; Fiji; Kiribati; Marshall Islands;

Nauru; Niue; Palau; Papua New Guinea;

Samoa; Solomon Islands; Tonga;

Tuvalu; Vanuatu

Applied

Geoscience and

Technology

Division

(SOPAC) of the

Secretariat of

the Pacif ic

Community

(SPC) (SOPAC ) Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS), World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)European Development Fund (including ACP DRR Facility) (EDF)-

Disaster Risk Reduction in Eight

Pacif ic ACP States [emergency

operations and communications] Current 2007-Oct-01 2011-Dec-31

Micronesia, Federated States of; Palau;

Papua New Guinea; Solomon Islands;

Nauru; Tonga; Tuvalu

Applied

Geoscience and

Technology

Division

(SOPAC) of the

Secretariat of

the Pacif ic

Community

(SPC) (SOPAC ) None European Development Fund (including ACP DRR Facility) (EDF)$11385159.00

Building Resilience to Tsunamis in

the Indian Ocean (Project Selamat) Completed 2007-Sep-01 2009-Mar-31

India; Indonesia; Maldives; Sri Lanka;

Bhutan

Asian Disaster

Reduction and

Response

Network (ADRRN) Kyoto University, University of Madras - India, Bandung Institute of Technology - Indonesia (ITB), University of Peradeniya - Sri Lanka, Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC)European Commission (except ECHO) (EC)-

256

APPENDIX III

INTERVIEW DATA COLLATION

___________________________________

1. Participants (26)

European participants (14):

European Commission staff (2):

ECHO Staff, 10/11/2010.

European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Cabinet, 4/11/2010.

ECHO Regional Office, Bangkok (2):

ECHO Information Officer, 25/02/2011.

ECHO DRR Coordinator, 25/02/2011.

Members of the European Parliament (2):

Del to ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly /Committee on ENVI, 11/11/ 2010.

Committee on LIBE, 4/11/2010.

European international organisations (4):

CAFOD, 10/09/2012.

Helpage, 11/09/2012.

UNICEF, 28/08/2012.

ICRC, 27/09/2012.

Europe-based DRR Practitioners (4):

Anonymous, 11/09/2012.




In-country participants (12):

In-country EU chargé d’affaires (1):


In-country donors (3);

AusAid, 16/10/2012.

UN Agency, 16/10/2012.

UN Agency, 16/10/2012.

National Disaster Management Office (1):


In-country international organisations (5):

World Vision [regional], 29/08/2012.

World Vision [in-country], 15/10/2012.

Care International, 17/10/2012.

Save the Children, 18/10/2012.

Save the Children, 18/10/2012.

In-country DRR practitioner (1):

Vanuatu Humanitarian Team, 19/10/2012.

In-country local community member (1):


257

2. Example of information sheet and consent forms

INFORMATION SHEET You are invited to participate as a subject in the research project “EU and the Asia Pacific: Measuring the effectiveness of child protection in Disaster Risk Reduction strategies.” The aim of this project is to evaluate measures of child protection through collaborations between the European Union and external actors in regards to EU Disaster Risk Reduction policy and programming. Thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. During this study you will be asked to answer questions regarding Disaster Risk Reduction in the Asia-Pacific and collaborations with the EU. This interview is designed to be approximately 30mins to 1 hour in length, depending on your availability. Please feel free to expand on, or not answer, any of the questions you are asked. At the beginning of the interview the question of protection of identities will be raised. If you wish to remain anonymous, the publication of this research will contain no reference to yourself. You have the right to withdraw from the project up until 10 December 2012, including withdrawal of any information provided. The data collected for this research will be kept in a secure place, and only the senior supervisor and researcher will have access to this information. All data will be kept secure until it is destroyed, no longer than five years after the completion of this project. Please be aware that the results of the project will be published in a PhD thesis, which will be accessible to the public, and may be published in future research. The project is being carried out as a requirement to a PhD degree by Genevieve Taylor, who can be contacted at [email protected]. This project is under the supervision of Dr. Katharine Vadura, who can be contacted at [email protected]. They will be pleased to discuss any concerns you may have about participation in the project. The project has been reviewed and approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee. Kind regards,

Genevieve Taylor. PhD Candidate and Research Assistant National Centre for Research on Europe University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

258

Genevieve Taylor National Centre for Research on Europe Level 4 Commerce Building University of Canterbury Private Bag 4800 Christchurch New Zealand 7 July 2010 CONSENT FORM “EU AND THE ASIA PACIFIC: WORKING COLLABORATIVELY AND MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION IN RELATION TO CHILD PROTECTION.” I have read and understood the description of the above-named project. On this basis I am aware that the results of the project will be published in a Masters thesis, which will be accessible to the public, and may be published in future research, but I am assured of the complete confidentiality of data gathered in this investigation and my identity will not be made public without my consent. I understand also that I may withdraw from the project up until the 20 December 2010, including withdrawal of any information I have provided. I note that the project has been reviewed and approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee. Please ensure that your organisation has given you permission to speak on their behalf. While I understand that my personal details are confidential, I understand that the name of my organisation may be used in this research. I have indicated below whether I wish or do not wish this to be allowed in this research. Please tick:

Yes, I agree for the name of my organisation to be used in this research.

No, I do not agree for the name of my organisation to be used in this research. NAME (please print): ……………………………………………………………. Signature: Date:

259

3. Example of questions for semi-structured interviews

EUROPEAN UNION INTERVIEWS

1. Please give me a brief description of your position?

2. Very briefly could you please tell me how you came to work here?

ECHO's Operational policies

3. In terms of a time-frame, once the EU becomes aware of a crisis, how quick is the response from ECHO to

deliver immediate aid? Does this change if several countries are affected?

4. What is your opinion of the EEAS?

5. Do you believe the assembly of Member States' resources can be executed promptly enough, considering the

need for a rapid reaction to disasters?

Protection of children through ECHO's operational policies

6. What is your opinion on the protection of children within the formation of ECHO's operational policies?

7. ECHO's projects generally last 6 months, often there is a grey area between immediate aid and development,

where children can be extremely vulnerable. How do you think the EU can respond to this problem within its

humanitarian policies?

Interaction with partners

8. How do you view ECHO involvement in projects of European humanitarian NGOs - is it very active in such

projects, or could this coordination be improved?

9. Are there mechanisms in place to communicate with them after the project has been concluded?

10. Do you think the geographic distance affects the coordination with external NGOs or is there coordination

through local ECHO operational centres?

11. In your opinion, do the local ECHO operational centres improve coordination at a time of crisis, or does it

make it more difficult for external actors to know who to coordinate with?

12. What do you see as the biggest challenge for ECHO at present?

13. Do you have any other comments, or is there anything you wish to ask me?

PARTNER INTERVIEWS

1. Please give me a brief description of your position?

2. Very briefly could you please tell me how you came to work here?

3. How do you view the effectiveness of EU – partner relations in general?

4. What is your opinion of the EU’s approach to children in its external action?

5. How do the EU’s policies reflect child protection in project implementation

6. How do the EU’s mechanisms and institutions affect the implementation of your projects?

7. What is your view of the EU’s presence in the region?

8. How do you think children and child vulnerability can be better highlighted in DRR policies and

programming at the different levels of governance?

9. Do you have any other comments, or is there anything you wish to ask me?

260

4. University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee Approval

This research required a high-risk ethics approval due to the focus of children. The University of Canterbury

Human Ethics Committee reviewed and approved the methodological components for this project.676

It should

be emphasised that this research did not entail any direct contact with children. Subjects approached in

interviews were asked questions related to children, their rights, and their protection during times of crisis.

Additionally, the subjects interviewed were often advocates for children, which consequently meant this

research necessitated a high-risk ethics approval.

Ref: HEC 2010/80

28 June 2010

Genevieve Taylor

National Centre for Research on Europe

UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY

Dear Genevieve

The Human Ethics Committee advises that your research proposal “EU and the Asia Pacific: working

collaboratively and measuring effectiveness in humanitarian action in relation to child protection” has been

considered and approved.

Please note that this approval is subject to the incorporation of the amendments you have provided in your email

of 22 June 2010.

Best wishes for your project.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael Grimshaw

Chair, Human Ethics Committee

676

Evidence of this approval can be found in Appendix III

261

BIBLIOGRAPHY

__________________________________

Acharya, Amitav. “Human Security: East versus West,” International Journal 56, no. 3

(2001): 442-460.

Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action.

Protection: an ALNAP guide to humanitarian action. London: Overseas Development

Initiatives, 2005.

Alkire, Sabina. A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. Oxford: Centre for Research

on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, 2003.

Anderson, William A. “Bringing Children into Focus on the Social Science Disaster Research

Agenda,” International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 23, no. 3 (2005): 159-

175.

Archand, David. “Children’s rights,” In Handbook on Human Rights, 324-332. Milton Park,

Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2012.

Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC). Community-based Disaster Risk Management: a

field practitioner’s guide. Pathumthani: ADPC, 2004.

Asia Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC). Critical guidelines: Community-based Disaster

Risk Management. Pathumthani: ADPC, 2007.

Axworthy, Lloyd. “Human Security: An opening for UN reform.” In The United Nations and

Global Security, edited by Richard M. Price and Mark W Zacher, 245-260.New York:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

Axworthy, Lloyd. “Human Security and Global Governance: Putting People First,” Global

Governance 7 (2001):19-23.

Barkin, J. Samuel. International Organization: Theories and Institutions. New York:


Becker, et al. “Human Rights in EU Law.” In Human Rights Law, edited by Brid Moriarty

and Eva Messa, 155-201. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

262

Belgrad, Eric A. “The Politics of Humanitarian Aid.” In The Politics of international

humanitarian aid operations, edited by Eric A. Belgrad and Nitza Nachmias, 3-18. Westport,

Connecticut; London: Praeger, 1997.

Benson et al., “NGO Initiatives in Risk Reduction: An Overview,” Disasters 25, no. 3

(2001):199-215.

Bernard, H. R. Research Methods in Cultural anthropology, (3rd

edition). Oxford: Sage

Publications, 2002.

Berry, Jeffrey M. “Validity and Reliability Issues in Elite Interviewing,” Political Science

and Politics 35, no. 4 (2002): 679-682.

Bindi, Federiga, and Irina Angelescu. “The Open Question of an EU Foreign Policy,” In The

Foreign Policy of the European Union, edited by Federiga Bindi and Irina Angelescu, 325-

336. Washington DC., Brookings Institute Press, 2012.

Bizzarri, Mariangela, “Protection of Vulnerable Groups in Natural and Manmade Disasters,“

In International Disaster Response Law, edited by Andrea de Guttry et al., 381-414. The

Hague: Springer, 2012,

Blaikie et al. At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. London; New

York: Routledge, 1994.

Blockmans, Steven, and Marja-Liisa Laatsit. “The European External Action Service:

Enhancing Coherence in EU External Action?” In EU external relations law and policy in the

Post-Lisbon Era, edited by Paul James Cardwell, 135-158. The Hague: T M C Asser Press,

2012.

Booth, Ken. “Security and emancipation.” Review of International Studies 17, (1992): 313-

326.

Booth, Ken and Tim Dunne, "Learning Beyond Frontiers," in Human Rights in Global

Politics, edited by Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheeler, 303-328. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1999.

Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement. Human Rights and Natural Disasters:

Operational Guidelines and Field Manual on Human Rights Protection in Situations of

Natural Disaster. Washington, DC.: Brookings Institute, 2008.

263

Button, Gregory, and Anthony Oliver-Smith. “Disaster, Displacement and Employment.” In

Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal strategies in disaster reconstruction, edited by

Nandini Gunewardena and Mark Schuller, 123-146. Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2008.

Cain, Emma. Social Protection and Vulnerability, Risk and Exclusion across the life-cycle.

London: OECD, 2009.

Caprile, A. “Humanitarian Aid.” The Lisbon Treaty and its implications for the EU External Action.

Brussels: Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, (2009): 18-19.

Califano, Joseph J. “Justice, Security, and Genuine Peace.” In Global Community, edited by.

Randall E. Osborne and Paul Kries, 279-288. Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008.

Cannon, Terry. Reducing People’s Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Communities and

Resilience [Research Paper No. 2008/34]. Helsinki: UNU-WIDER, 2008.

Carbone, Maurizio. “Normative Power and Political Dialogue: The European Union in the

South Pacific,” Asia-Pacific Journal of EU Studies 4, no.1 (2006): 27-42.

Carmalt, Jean Connolly, and Claudine Haenni Dale. “Human Rights and Disaster.” In

Routledge Handbook on Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, edited by Wisner et al., 61-70.

Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2012.

Carr, L T. “Disasters and the Sequence-Pattern Concept of Social Change,” American

Journal of Sociology 38 (1932): 207-218.

Chandanan, A K, and M K Shukla. “Data mining for qualitative dataset using association

rules: a review,” International journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and

Electronics Engineering 2, no.2 (2013): 232-238.

Cheria, Anita, Sriprapha Petcharamesree & Edwin. A Human Rights Approach to

Development, Bangalore: Books for Change, 2004.

Christiansen, Thomas, et al., The Palgrave Handbook of EU-Asia Relations. Basingstoke:


Cohen, Roberta. “From Sovereign responsibility to R2P.” In The Routledge Handbook on

R2P, edited by W Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, 7-21. London; New York: Routledge,

2012.

Cooper Drury, A. and Richard S Olson. “Disasters and Political Unrest: An empirical

investigation,” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 6, no. 3 (1998): 153-161.

264

Comfort Louise K, et al. “Designing adaptive systems.” In Designing resilience: preparing

for extreme events, edited by Louise K. Comfort et al, 33-61. Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press, 2010.

Comfort, Louise K, et al. “Resilience revisited: an action agenda for managing extreme

events.” In Designing Resilience: Prepare for extreme events, edited by Louise K Comfort,

Arjen Boin, and Chris C. Demchak, 272-284. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2010.

Crosston, Matthew. “Fighting Terror and Spreading Democracy: When Theory and Practice

Collide.” In Global Community, edited by Randall E. Osborne and Paul Kries, 17-44.

Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008.

Cutter, S L et al. “Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards.” Social Science Quarterly

84, no. 2, (2003): 242-261.

Cutter, S L. "The Forgotten Casualties: Women, Children, and Environmental Change."

Global Environmental Change 5, no. 3 (1995): 181-194.

Daly, Patrick, and Yenny Rahmayati. “Cultural Heritage and Community Recovery in Post-

tsunami Aceh.” In From the Ground Up: Perspectives on Post-tsunami and post-conflict

Aceh, edited by P Daly, R M Feener, A Reid, 57-78. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2012.

Danida. Children and Young People in Danish Development Cooperation – Guidelines.

Copenhagen: Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2005.

Darcy, James. Human Rights and Humanitarian Action: A review of the issues. Geneva:

Overseas Development Institute, 2004.

David, Matthew, and Carole D Sutton. Social Research. London; Los Angeles; New Delhi:

Sage, 2004.

Davies, Mark, Katy Oswald, and Tom Mitchell. Climate Change Adaption, Disaster Risk

Reduction, and Social Protection. Paris: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and

Development, 2009.

De Bruijne, Mark, et al. “Resilience: Exploring the Concept and its meanings.” In Designing

Resilience: Preparing for extreme events, edited by L K Comfort et al., 13-32. Pittsburgh:

University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.

Dearden, Stephen J. H. “EU Aid Policy towards the Pacific ACPs,” Journal of International

Development 20, (2008): 205-217.

265

Degnbol-Martinussen, John, and Paul Engberg-Pedersen. Aid: Understanding international

development cooperation. Borgergade: Mellemfolkeligt Samvirke, 2005.

Delegation of the EU to Thailand and UNISDR. Building back better for next time. Bangkok:

UNISDR, 2010.

Delica-Willison, Zenaida and JC Gaillard. “Community Action and Disaster.” In The

Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction, edited by Ben Wisner et al.,

711-722. New York; London: Routledge, 2012.

Development Initiatives. Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2011. Wells: Development

Initiatives, 2011.

DFID. Defining Disaster Resilience: A DFID Approach Paper. London: DFID, 2011.

Dombrowsky, Wolf R. “Again and Again: Is a disaster what we call ‘Disaster’?”

International journal of mass emergencies and disasters 13, no. 3 (1995): 241-254.

Donnelly, Jack. "Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights," Human Rights Quarterly

6, no. 4 (1984): 400-419.

Duggal-Chadha, Aradhna. “Children and Disasters.” Refugee Survey Quarterly 25, no. 4

(2006):85-90.

Dunne, Tim, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. “‘We the peoples’: Contending discourses of security

in human rights theory and practice.” In Critical perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking

Emancipation and Power in International Relations, edited by D Chandler and N Hynek, 13-

27. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2011.

Duke, Simon. “The Lisbon Treaty and External Relations,” European Institute of Public

administration, no.1 (2008):13-18.

Dynes, Russell R. “Disaster Reduction: The importance of adequate assumptions about social

organisation,” Sociological Spectrum 13, (1993): 175-192.

Edwards, Frances L. “All Hazards, Whole Community.” In Disaster Resiliency:

Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Naim Kapucu et al, 21-47. New York; London:

Routledge, 2013.

El Consejo de ministros. Plan Director de la Cooperación Espanola 2009-2012. Madrid:

Consejo de ministros, 2009.

266

EM-DAT, “CRED CRUNCH Disaster Data: A balanced perspective,” no. 19 (2010).

Emerson, Michael, and Piotr Maciej Kaczynski. “Looking afresh at the external

representation of the EU in the international arena, post-Lisbon.” Centre for Europe Policy

Studies Policy Brief 212. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies, 2010.

European Commission. A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made

disasters (COM (2009)82. Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

European Commission. A Special Place for Children in EU External Action [SEC(2008)135].

Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

European Commission, An EU Agenda for the rights of the child (COM(2011)60). Brussels:

European Commission, 2011.

European Commission. Annex III: General conditions applicable to European Union Grant

Agreements with humanitarian organisations for humanitarian aid actions. Brussels:

European Commission, 2009).

European Commission. Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU

enhanced partnership (2013-2017). Bandar Seri Begawan: European Commission, 2012.

European Commission. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

2000/C364/01. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000.

European Commission. Children in Emergency and Crisis Situations [COM(2008) 55 final].


European Commission. Combating Child Labour [SEC(2010)37]. Brussels: European

Commission, 2010.

European Commission. Commission Decision on the financing of disaster preparedness

actions in the Pacific from the general budget of the European Union,

[ECHO/DIP/BUD/2009/07000]. Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

European Commission, Commission Implementing Decision on the financing of humanitarian

aid operational priorities from the 2013 general budget of the European Union

[C(2012)9883]. Brussels: European Commission, 2013.

267

European Commission. Commission Implementing Decision on financing humanitarian aid

operational priorities from the 2014 general budget of the European Union [C(2013)9533].


European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document: Implementation Plan of the

EU Strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries 2011-2014.


European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament: EU Strategy for supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing

Countries (COM(2009)84). Brussels: European Commission, 2009.

European Commission. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council On

combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing

Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA [COM(2010)94]. Brussels: European Commission, 2010.

European Commission. Draft General Budget of the European Commission for the Financial

Year 2012 [COM(2011)300]. Brussels: European Commission, 2011.

European Commission. EU 2009 report on policy coherence for development. Brussels:


European Commission. Human Rights and Democracy at the heart of EU external action –

towards a more effective approach. Brussels: European Commission, 2011.

European Commission. Pacific Regional Strategy Paper and Regional Indicative Programme

2008-2013. Strasbourg: European Commission, 2008.

European Commission. Partnership with DG ECHO: Supporting Documents. Brussels:


European Commission. Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation

[COM(2012)446]. Brussels: European Commission, 2012.

European Commission. The Cotonou agreement. Ouagadougou, European

Commission,2010).

European Commission. The European Consensus on Development [2006/C 46/01]. Brussels:

Official Journal of the European Union, 2005.

268

European Commission. The European Union’s Action Plan on Children’s Rights in External

Action [COM(2008) 55 final]. Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

European Commission. The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and

democratisation in third countries [COM(2001)252]. Brussels: European Commission, 2001.

European Commission. Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil

protection and humanitarian assistance. Brussels: European Commission, 2010.

European Community. Consolidated version of the Treaty of the European Union. Brussels:

Official Journal of the European Union C83/13, 2010.

European Community. Fundamental Rights of the Child 2000/C 364/01. Brussels: Official

Journal of the European Communities C 364/1, 2000.

European Community. The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid. Brussels: Official

Journal 2008/C 25/01, 2008.

Farran. Sue. Human Rights in the South Pacific: Challenges and Changes. Abingdon:

Routledge-Cavendish, 2009.

Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation. The

Rights of the Child in Development Cooperation. Brussels: Plan Belgium and UNICEF

Belgium, 2007).

Ferreira-Pereira, Laura C. “Human Rights, Peace and Democracy: Is ‘Model Power Europe’ a

contradiction in terms?” In The foreign policy of the European Union: Assessing Europe’s

role in the world, edited by Federiga Bindi, 290-302.Washington: Brookings Institution Press,

2010.

Ferris, Elizabeth G. The politics of protection: the limits of humanitarian action. Washington,

D.C: Brookings Institute Press, 2011.

Flanagan et al. “A Social Vulnerability Index for Disaster Management,” Journal of

Homeland Security and Emergency Management 8, no. 1 (2011): 1-22.

Fordham, Maureen. “Gendering Vulnerability Analysis: Towards a More Nuanced

Approach.” In Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, development and people, edited by G

Bankoff et al, 174-182, London: Earthscan, 2007.

269

Forsythe, David P. “Human Rights and Humanitarian Operations: Theoretical Observations.”

In The politics of international humanitarian aid operations, edited by Eric A Belgrad and

Nitza Nachmias, 37-52. Connecticut; London: Praeger, 1997.

Frerks, Georg. “Human security as a discourse and counter-discourse,” Security and Human

Rights, no. 1 (2008): 8-14.

German Development Cooperation. Disaster Risk Management. Bonn: Schoemer Gruppe,

2010.

Gómez S., Oscar A. “What is a human security project? The experience of the UN Trust Fund

for Human Security,” Global Change, Peace and Security 24, no. 3 (2012):385-403.

Gilbert, Claude. “Studying Disaster: A review of the main conceptual tools,” International

Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disaster 13 (1995): 231:240.

Gilbert, Claude. “Studying Disaster: Changes in the main conceptual tools.” In What is a

Disaster? A dozen perspectives on the question, edited by E L Quarantelli, 11-18. London:

Routledge, 1998.

Glasius. Marlies, and Mary Kaldor. A Human Security doctrine for Europe: Project,

Principles and Practicalities. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2006.

Goldewijk, Berma Klein. “Why human? The interlinkages between security, rights and

development,” Security and Human Rights, no. 1 (2008): 24-36.

Goodale, Mark. “Locating rights, envisioning law between the global and the local.” In The

Practice of Human Rights, edited by Mark Goodale and Sally E Merry, 1-38. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Government of Malta, An Overseas Development Policy and a Framework for Humanitarian

assistance for Malta. Government of Malta, 2007.

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. Disaster Risk Management Programs

for Priority Countries. Washington D.C: GFDRR Secretariat, 2009.

Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction. Views from the

Frontline: Beyond 2015. Middlesex: GNDR, 2013.

Gran, Brian. “Vulnerability and Human Rights,” Societies Without borders 2, (2007): 291-

298.

270

Grugel, Jean and Ingi Iusmen. “The European Commission as guardian angel: the challenges

of agenda-setting for children’s rights.” Journal of European Public Policy, (2012): 1-18.

Gruiters, Jan “Human security and development: an ambivalent relationship” Security and

Human Rights 19, no 1, (2008): 54-63.

Guan, Benny Teh Cheng. Human Security. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012.

Gunewardena, Nandini and Mark Schuller, Capitalizing on Catastrophe: Neoliberal

strategies in disaster reconstruction. Plymouth: Altamira Press, 2008.

Haase, Thomas W. “International Disaster Resilience,” In Designing Resilience, edited by

Comfort et al., 220-243. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2010.

Hamilton, Daniel S. “The Lisbon Treaty and Relations between the European Union and the

United States.” In The Foreign Policy of the European Union, edited by Federiga Bindi and

Irina Angelescu, 215-236. Washington DC: Brookings Institute, 2012.

Hammarberg, Thomas. The Principle of the Best Interests of the Child - what it means and

what it demands from adults [CommDH/Speech(2008)10]. Warsaw: Council of Europe,

2008.

Harrington, Joanna. “R2P and Natural Disasters.” In The Routledge handbook of the

responsibility to protect, edited by W. Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, 141-151. New York:

Routledge, 2012.

Hart, Jason and Bex Tyler. “Research with Children Living in Situations of Armed Conflict:

Concepts, Ethics and Methods,” RSC Working Paper Series, 2006.

Hart, Stuart N. et al. “A new age for child protection – general comment 13: why it is

important, how it was constructed and what it intends?” Child Abuse and neglect 35, (2011):

970-978.

Hay, John E. Roles of the Pacific Regional Organisations in Disaster Risk Management.

Washington DC: Brookings-LSE Project on Internal Displacement, 2013.

Hewitt, Kenneth. “Excluded perspectives in the social construction of disaster.” In What is a

disaster? Perspectives on the question, edited by E.L. Quarantelli, 75-91. New York; London:

Routledge, 1998.

Hewitt, Kenneth. Regions of risk: A Geographical introduction to disasters. Harlow, Addison

Wesley Longman Ltd, 1997.

271

Hewitt, Kenneth. “The Idea of Calamity in a Technocratic Age.” In Interpretations of

Calamity, edited by Kenneth Hewitt, 2-32. Winchester: Allen and Unwin inc., 1983.

Hill, Christopher. “The Future of the European Union as a Global Actor.’ In Managing a

Multilevel Foreign Policy: The EU in International Affairs, edited by Paolo Foradori, Paolo

Rosa, and Riccardo Scartezzini. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2007.

Holland, Martin, and Matthew Doidge. Development Policy of the European Union.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Holland, Martin, and Malakai Koloamatangi. “Governance, Capacity and Legitimacy: EPAs,

EBA and the European Union’s Pacific Regionalism after Cotonou.” In Redefining the

Pacific? Regionalism Past, Present and Future, edited by Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian

Frazer, 101-120. Aldershot; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006.

Human Security Centre. Human Security Report 2005: War and Peace in the 21st Century.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Humanitarian Policy Unit. A human rights-based approach to programming gin

humanitarian crises: is UNICEF up for the challenge? EMOPS, 2003.

Huysmans, Jef. The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. Abingdon;

New York: Routledge, 2006.

Hyslop, Maitland P. and Andrew E. Collins, “Hardened institutions and disaster risk

reduction,” Environmental Hazards 12, no. 1 (2013): 19-31.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Protecting persons affected by natural disasters: IASC

operational guidelines on human rights and natural disasters. Washington, D.C: Brookings-

Bern Project on Internal Displacement, 2006.

Irrera, Daniela. “EU and civil society: the case of NGOs in peace missions and humanitarian

intervention,” Romanian Journal of European Affairs 10, no. 1 (2010): 32-51.

Jabry, Amer. After the Cameras Have Gone: Children in Disasters. London: Plan

International, 2003.

Jalal, P.I. Why do we need a Pacific regional human rights commission? Victoria University

of Wellington Law Review 40, (2009): 177-194.

272

Jones, Lindsey, et al. Responding to a changing climate: exploring how disaster risk

reduction, social protection and livelihoods approaches promote features of capacity.

London: Overseas Development Institute, 2010.

Kaldor, Mary. Human Security: Reflections on Globalisation and Intervention. Oxford:

Wiley, 2013.

Kaldor, Mary. “The EU as a New Form of Political Authority: An Example of the Common

Security and Defence Policy,” Global Policy 3, no. 1 (2010): 79-86.

Kaldor, Mary, M Martin, and S Selchow. “Human Security: a new strategic narrative for

Europe,” International affairs 83, no. 2 (2007): 273-288.

Kapucu, Naim et al. Disaster Resiliency: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York; London:

Routledge, 2013.

Keane, Rory. “EU Foreign Policy Motivation: A Mix of Human Security and Realist

Elements.” In A decade of Human Security: Global Governance and New Multilateralism,

edited by. Sandra J MacLean et al., 39-52. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.

Kellett, Jan, and Dan Sparks. Disaster Risk Reduction: Spending Where It Should Count.

edited by Global Humanitarian Assistance. Wells: Development Initiatives, 2012.

Kelly, Serena. The European Union in the Asia-Pacific: current representations and the

potential impact of the EEAS. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, 2009.

Kelman, Ilan. Disaster Diplomacy: How disasters affect peace and conflict. Abingdon:

Routledge, 2012.

Kenny, .K When needs are rights: an overview of UN efforts to integrate human rights in

humanitarian action [Occasional paper #38]. Providence, The Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute

for International Studies, 2000.

Kennedy et al., “Disaster mitigation lessons from build back better following the 26

December 2004 Tsunamis.” In Water and Urban Development Paradigms, edited by J.

Feyen, K. Shannon and M. Neville, 297-302. London: Taylor and Francis Group, 2009.

Kenny, K. When needs are rights: an overview of UN efforts to integrate human rights in

humanitarian assistance. Occasional Paper #38. Providence: Thomas J Watson Institute for

International Studies, 2000.

273

Keukeleire, S. and J. MacNaughtan. The Foreign Policy of the European Union. New York:


Klingman, Avigdor. “Children under stress of war.” In Helping children cope with disasters

and terrorism, edited by Annette M La Greca et al., 359-380. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association, 2002.

Knodt, Michele, and Sebastiaan Princen. “Puzzles and prospects in theorizing the EU’s

External Relations,” in Understanding the European Union’s External Relations, edited by

M Knodt and S Princen, 1-16. London; New York: Routledge, 2003.

Krause, Keith. “Facing the challenge of small arms.” In the United Nations and Global

Security, edited by Richard M Price and Mark W Zacher, 21-38. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2004.

Kuper, Andrew. Global Responsibilities: Who must deliver on human rights? Hoboken:

Taylor and Francis, 2005.

Kuper, Jenny. “Minor Matter? The Place of Young People as part of the EU security

doctrine.” International Journal of Children’s Rights 18, (2010): 127-147.

La Trobe, Sarah. Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: A Tool for Development

Organisations. London: Aon Benfield Hazard Centre, 2005

La Trobe, Sarah and Paul Venton. Natural Disaster Risk Reduction: The policy and practice

of selected institutional donors. Middlesex: Tearfund, 2003.

Labadie, John R. “Auditing of post-disaster recovery and reconstruction activities,” Disaster

Prevention and Management 17, no. 5, (2008): 575-586.

Landman, Todd, and Edzia Carvalho. Measuring human rights. New York: Routledge, 2010.

Landman, Todd and Marco Larizza. EU policy discourse: democracy, governance, and

human rights. Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2010.

Lavell, Allan. Relationships between Local and Community Disaster Risk Management &

Poverty Reduction: A Preliminary Exploration. Geneva: UNISDR, 2008.

Lingkar Association. Working with community: good practices community based disaster risk

reduction. Yogyakarta: Lingkar Association, 2012.

274

Liu, A. Building a Better New Orleans: A Review of and Plan for Progress One Year after

Hurricane Katrina. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, 2006.

Lucarelli, S, and I Manners, Values and Principles in European Union foreign policy.

London; New York, Routledge, 2006.

Magazzeni, Gianni. “The interface between humanitarian action and human rights.” Refugee

Survey Quarterly 18, no.3 (1999): 32-39.

Mahoney, Christine and Michael J Beckstrand. “Following the Money: European Union

Funding of Civil Society Organisations,” Journal of Common Market Studies 49, no. 6

(2011): 1339-1361.

Mani, Rama, and Thomas G. Weiss. “Grounding responsibility and protection in culture and

politics.” In Responsibility to Protect: Cultural Perspectives in the Global South, edited by R

Mani and T. G. Weiss, 1-22. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2011.

Manners, Ian. “Normative Power Europe: a contradiction in terms?” Journal of Common

Market Studies 40, no 2 (2002): 235-258.

Manners, Ian. “Normative Power Europe: The International Role of the EU.” The European

Union between International and World Society, Biennial Conference, Madison, USA, 31

May 2001.

Manners, Ian. “The normative ethics of the European Union.” International Affairs 84, no 1

(2008), 45-60.

Manners, Ian, and Richard G. Whitman. The Foreign Policies of European Union Member

States. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000.

Manners, Ian. and Richard Whitman, “The ‘Difference Engine’: Constructing and

Representing the International Identity of the European Union,” Journal of European Public

Policy 10, no. 3 (2003): 380-404.

Martin, Mary, and Taylor Owen. “The second generation of human security: lessons from the

UN and EU experience,” International Affairs 86, no. 1 (2010): 211-224.

Matin, Nilufar, and Muhammad Taher. “Disaster Mitigation in Bangladesh: Country

Case Study of NGO Activities,” Disasters 25, No. 3 (2001): 227-239.

275

Maull, Hanns W. “Europe and the new balance of global order,” International Affairs 18, no.

4 (2005): 775-799.

McCormick, Christine. “Monitoring, reporting and addressing child rights and protection

violations in ‘non-listed’ countries,” Disasters 37, S1 (2013):121-138.

McEntire, David. “Understanding and reducing vulnerability: from the approach of liabilities

and capabilities.” Disaster prevention and management 21, no.2 (2012): 206-225.

McRae, Rob and Don Hubert. Human Security and the new diplomacy. Quebec: McGill-

Queen’s University Press, 2001.

Mercer et al. “Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities,” Environmental

Hazards 11, no. 2 (2012):74-95.

Mercer et al. “Reflections on use of participatory research for disaster risk reduction,” Area

40, no. 2 (2008):172-183

Merry, Sally E. “Conditions of Vulnerability.” In The practice of Human rights,edited by

Mark Goodale and Sally Engle Merry, 195-203. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge


Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. Checklist on DRR issues. Helsinki: FORMIN, 2011.

Mitchell, Tom et al. “The Roles of Children and Youth in Communicating Disaster Risk,”

Children, Youth and Environments 18, no.1 (2008): 254-279.

Mitchell, Tom, Thomas Tanner, and Katharine Haynes. Children as Agents of Change for

Disaster Risk Reduction: Lessons from El Salvador and the Philippines. Brighton: Institute of

Development Studies, 2009.

Nancy, Gilles, and Boriana Yontcheva, “Does NGO Aid Go to the Poor? Empirical evidence

from Europe,” IMF Working Paper WP/06/39 (2006): 1-23.

Nussbaum, Martha C. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard


O'Brien, Geoff, et al. “Climate Change and Disaster Management.” Disasters 30, no. 1

(2006): 64-80.

O’Neill, O. Towards Justice and Virtue: A constructive account of practical reasoning.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

276

OCHA & UNDP. Integrating human rights in natural disaster management in the Pacific.

Suva: OCHA, 2007.

OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

OECD, 2005.

Ogata Sadako, and Johan Cels, “Human Security – Protecting and Empowering the People,”

Global Governance 9, no. 3 (2003): 273-282.

Oxford, Anne. Humanitarian Intervention: Human Rights and the use of force in

International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Human Security Framework for the Pacific 2012-2015.

Suva: PIF Secretariat, 2012.

Paris, Roland. ‘Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?’ International Security 26, no. 2,

(2001): 87-102.

Paton, Douglas, and David Johnston. “Disasters and Communities: Vulnerability, Resilience

and Preparedness.” Disaster Prevention and Management 10, no. 4 (2001): 270-277

Peek, Lori. “Children and Disasters: Understanding Vulnerability, Developing Capacity, and

Promoting Resilience - an Introduction.” Children, Youth and Environment 18, no. 1 (2008):

1-29.

Pelling, Mark, and Kathleen Dill. “Disaster politics: tipping points for change in the

adaptation of socio-political regimes,” Progress in Human Geography 34, no 21 (2010): 21-

37.

Phillips Brenda D. et al. Social vulnerability to disasters. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis,

2010.

Plan International and World Vision. Children on the Frontline. London; Monrovia: Plan

International and World Vision, 2009.

Polack, Emily, et al. Accountability for disaster risk reduction: lessons from the Philippines.

Sussex: Institute of Development Studies, 2010.

Quarantelli, E.L. Disaster Related Social Behaviour: Summary of 50 Years of Research

Findings. Newark: University of Delaware, 1999.

277

Quarantelli, E.L. The Disaster Recovery Process: what we know and do not know from

research. Newark: University of Delaware, 1999.

Quarantelli, E.L. The Sociology of Panic. Newark: University of Delaware, 1999.

Quille, Gerald. The Lisbon Treaty and its implications for the EU External Action. Brussels:

Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, 2009.

Rhinard, Mark and Bengt Sundelius. “The Limits of Self-Reliance.” In Designing Resilience:

Prepare for extreme events, edited by Louise K Comfort, Arjen Boin, and Chris C. Demchak,

196-219. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2010.

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. New donors can make a difference! Bucharest:

Development Assistance Unit, 2010.

Ronen, Ya’ir. “On the Child’s Right to Identity, the Best Interests of the Child and Human

Dignity,” Conference Paper for the Conference on Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies,

Hawaii, 2009.

Rufman, Philippe. “Non-governmental organizations; an indispensable player of

humanitarian aid,” International review of the Red Cross 89, no 864 (2007): 21-45.

Sarewitz. Daniel et al. “Vulnerability and Risk: Some thoughts from a political and policy

perspective,” Risk Analysis 23, no. 4 (2003): 805-810.

Scarpa, Silvia. Trafficking in human beings: modern slavery. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2008.

Scheffran, Jurgen, et al, Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Crises. Dordrecht:

Springer, 2012.

Seballos, Fran et al. “Children and disasters: understanding impact and enabling agency.”

Children in a changing climate. Oxford: Oxford Policy Management, 2011.

Secretariat of the Pacific Community – Applied Geoscience and Technology Division

(SOPAC). Disaster Risk Management for Sustainable Development in Pacific Island

Countries – The Need for Leadership by Central Agencies. Suva: SOPAC, 2013.

Sen, Amartya. “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development 6, no. 2

(2005): 151-166.

278

Sjursen, Helene. “Understanding the common foreign and security policy: Analytical building

blocks.” In Understanding the European Union’s External Relations, edited by Michèle

Knodt and Sebastiaan Princen, 35-53. London: Routledge, 2003.

South, Ashley, Simon Harragin, et al. “Local to Global Protection in Myanmar, Sudan, South

Sudan and Zimbabwe [HPN Paper No 72].” edited by Humanitarian Practice Network.

London: Overseas Development Institute, 2012.

Smith, Michael E. “Conforming to Europe: the domestic impact of EU foreign policy

cooperation,” Journal of European Public Policy 7, no. 4. (2000): 613-631.

Smillie, Ian. “Whose security? Innovation and responsibility, perception and reality.” In A

decade of Human Security, edited by. Sandra J. MacLean, David R. Black, Timothy M.

Shaw, 19-30. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.

Stalford, Helen. Children and the European Union: Rights, Welfare and Accountability.

Oxford: Hart Publishing Ltd, 2012.

Stoddard, Abby. Humanitarian NGOs: challenges and trends. New York University: Centre

on International Cooperation, 2007.

Stoltman, J.P. et al. International Perspectives on Natural Disasters: Occurrence, Mitigation

and Consequence. Netherlands: Springer, 2001.

Suhrke, Astrid. “Human Security and the interests of states.” Security Dialogue 30.

(1999):265-76.

Thomalla, Frank et al. “Reducing Hazard Vulnerability: Towards a Common Approach

between Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Adaption.” Disasters 30, no. 1 (2006): 39-4.

Tierney, Kathleen, and Anthony Oliver Smith, “Social Dimensions of Disaster Recovery,”

International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 30, no. 2 (2012): 123-146.

Trzaskowski, Rafal, et al. “The European External Action Service: Consequences for EU

Institutions and Foreign Relations.” In International Politics in Times of Change, edited by

Nikolaos Tzifakis, 79-97. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012.

Twigg, John. Characteristics of a disaster-resilient community: A guidance note. London:

DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group, 2007.

Twigg, John. Disaster Risk Reduction: mitigation and preparedness in development and

emergency programming. London: Overseas Development Institute, 2004.

279

Twigg, John. and Diane Steiner, “Mainstreaming disaster mitigation: challenges to

organisation learning in NGOs,” Development in Practice 12, no. 3&4 (2002): 473-479.

Twigg, John, et al. Guidance notes on participation and accountability. London: University

College of London, 2001.

Turner, Bryan S. “A sociology of citizenship and human rights: Does social theory still

exist?” In Interpreting human rights – social science perspective, edited by R Morgan and B

S Turner, 177-199. London; New York: Routledge, 2009.

Turner, Bryan S. Vulnerability and Human Rights. Pennsylvania University Press: University

Park: 2006.

Turner, Bryan S. and Chris Rojek. Society and Culture: Principles of Scarcity and Solidarity.

London: SAGE Publications, 2001.

Turner, Bryan S. and Habibul H Khondker, Globalisation East and West. London: SAGE

Publications, 2010.

Turner, B S, and R Morgan. Interpreting Human Rights: Social Science perspectives.

London; New York: Routledge, 2009.

UNESCO Bangkok. Undertaking a human rights-based approach: A guide for Basic

Programming. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok, 2008.

UNICEF. A Human Rights-Based Approach to Programming in Humanitarian Crises: Is

UNICEF up to the Challenge? Geneva; New York: UNICEF, 2003.

UNICEF. The Participation of Children and Young People in Emergencies. Thailand:

UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Regional Office, 2007.

United Nations, 2005 World Summit Outcome [A/60/L.1], (United Nations: New York,

2005).

United Nations. Convention on the Rights of the Child [Resolution 44/25], 20 November

1989. Geneva: United Nations,1990.

United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Right, 10 December 1948, 217A (III),

Article VII. Geneva: United Nations, 1948.

280

United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report. New York: Oxford


United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Guidelines on Determining the Best

Interests of the Child. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees, 2008.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Building resilience to disasters

through partnerships: Lessons from the Hyogo Framework for Action. Geneva: UNISDR,

2013.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Towards a Culture of

Prevention: Disaster Risk Reduction Begins at School. Geneva: United Nations, 2007;

Valadez, Jorge M. “Adaptation, Sustainability, and Justice.” In Global Community, edited by

Randall E. Osborne and Paul Kries, 257-274. Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2008.

Webb et al. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences. Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1966.

Weiss, Thomas G. “Principles, Politics, and Humanitarian Action,” Ethnic and International

Affairs 13, no. 1 (1999): 1-22.

Weissbecker, Inka, et al. “Psychological and Physiological Correlates of Stress in Children

Exposed to Disaster: Current Research and Recommendations for Intervention,” Children,

Youth and Environments 18, no.1 (2008): 30-70.

Wheeler, Nicholas J. and Tim Dunne. “Operationalising Protective Intervention: Alternative

models of authorisation.” In The Routledge handbook of the responsibility to protect, edited

by W. Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, 87-102. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Whitman, Richard G. “Foreign, Security and Defence Policy and the Lisbon Treaty:

Significant or cosmetic reforms.” Global Europe Papers 1, (2008):1-8.

Wilderspin, I. et al., Evaluation of Disaster Risk Reduction Mainstreaming in DG ECHO’s

humanitarian actions: Final Report. Brussels: European Commission, 2008.

Wisner, Ben et al. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. New York:

Routledge, 2004.

281

Wisner, Ben. Let our children teach Us! A review of the role of education and knowledge in

disaster risk reduction. Bangalore: Books for Change, 2006.

Wisner, Ben. “Violent conflict, natural hazards, and disaster.” In The Routledge Handbook on

R2P, edited by W Andy Knight and Frazer Egerton, 71-81. London; New York: Routledge,

2012.

Woodiwiss, A. “Taking the sociology of human rights seriously,” In Interpreting human

rights – social science perspective, edited by R Morgan and B S Turner, 104-120. London;

New York: Routledge, 2009.

World Bank. Understanding Risk. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2010.

Wouters, Jan et al. China, the European Union, and the Restructuring of Global Governance.

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 2012.

United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report. New York: Oxford


Versluys, Helen. “Depoliticising and Europeanising Humanitarian Aid: Success or Failure?”

Perspectives on European Politics and Society 9, no. 2 (2008): 208-224.

Versluys, Helen. “European Union Humanitarian Aid: Lifesaver or Political Tool?” In

Europe’s Global Role External Policies of the European Union, edited by J Orbie, 91-115.

Avebury: Ashgate, 2008.

Yoon, D. K. “Assessment of social vulnerability to natural disasters: a comparative study,”

Natural Hazards 63, (2012): 823-843.

ONLINE SOURCES

ASEAN Secretariat. “Realizing Human Security in Asia,” Statement from Former Secretary

General H. E. Dr Surin Pitsuwan. http://www.asean.org/resources/2012-02-10-08-47-

56/speeches-statements-of-the-former-secretaries-general-of-asean/item/message-from-the-

secretary-general-of-asean-he-dr-surin-pitsuwan-for-the-realizing-human-security-in-asia-

symposium-at-the-university-of-tokyo. Accessed: 19 September 2013.

Cannon et al. “Social Vulnerability, Sustainable livelihoods and disasters.”

http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Social_vulnerability_sust_live.pdf. Accessed: 21 July

2011.





http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Social_vulnerability_sust_live.pdf

282

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). “EM-DAT: The International

Disaster Database.” http://emdat.be/database. Accessed: 4 April 2013.

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). “Criteria and Definition.”

2009. http://www.emdat.be/criteria-and-definition. Accessed: 9 September 2013.

Council of Europe. “Human Security.” 2009. http://eycb.coe.int/compass/en/pdf/5_10.pdf.

Accessed: 17 September 2013.

Council of Europe. “The European Social Charter.” 2012.

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/AboutCharter_en.asp .

Accessed 17th

September 2013.

EM-DAT, “EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database,” http://www.emdat.be, Accessed:

21 December 2010.

European Commission. “Disaster Risk Reduction.”

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/prevention_preparedness/dipecho_en.htm. Accessed: 7

January 2014.

European Commission. DG ECHO Partners’ Helpdesk. “Needs Assessments and

Beneficiaries.” http://dgecho-partners-helpdesk.eu. Accessed: 24 February 2014.

European Commission. “European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.”

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/about/index_en.htm. Accessed: 1 October 2013.

European Commission. “Malta – Donor Profile.”

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-

policies/financing_for_development/documents/malta-donor-profile.pdf. Accessed: 18

October 2013.

European Council. “EU guidelines on the rights of the child.” 14 December 2007.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16031.07.pdf. 25 March 2010.

Futamura, Madoka et al. “Natural Disasters and Human Security.”

http://unu.edu/articles/peace-security-human-rights/natural-disasters-and-human-security.

Accessed: 5 May 2011.

http://emdat.be/database

http://www.emdat.be/criteria-and-definition



http://www.emdat.be/

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/policies/prevention_preparedness/dipecho_en.htm


http://ec.europa.eu/echo/about/index_en.htm



http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/16031.07.pdf


283

Ferris, Elizabeth. “Protection in natural disasters,” 24 June 2010.

http://www.fmreview.org/disability/FMR35/58.pdf. Accessed: 21 July 2010.

Luna, Emmanuel. “NGO Natural Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness: The Philippine Case

Study.” 2000. http://www.redcross.org.uk/dmp. Accessed: 28 April 2010.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/dac.


Plan International. “Children and Young People at the centre of Disaster Risk Reduction.”

2007. http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrenindrr.pdf. Accessed: 15 December 2010.

Plan International and World Vision. “Children on the Frontline: Children and young people

in disaster risk reduction.” 2009. http://www.ineesite.org/assets/childernonthefrontline.pdf.

Accessed: 15 December 2010.

Riddell, Roger C. “Does Foreign Aid Really Work?” Background Paper to Keynote Address,

Australasian Aid and International Development Workshop, February 2014,

http://devpolicy.org/2014-Australasian-Aid-and-International-Development-Policy-

Workshop/Roger-Riddell-Background-Paper.pdf. Accessed: 25 February 2014.

Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities. “A Human Security Doctrine for Europe: The

Barcelona Report of the Study Group on Europe’s Security Capabilities.” 2004.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/40209/1/A_human_security_doctrine_for_Europe%28author%29.pdf.


Tocci, Nathalie. “Who is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? The European Union and its

Global Partners,” Centre for European Policy Studies, 2008,

http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1661.pdf. Accessed: 13 October 2009.

United Nations. “Chapter IV Human Rights. Part 11. Convention on the Rights of the Child,”

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-

11&chapter=4&lang=en. Accessed: 9 January 2013.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). “Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

http://www.unicef.org/crc. Accessed: 30 July 2009.

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “Fact sheet No. 10 (Rev

.1) The Rights of the Child.” http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs10.htm. Accessed: 28

July 2009.


http://www.redcross.org.uk/dmp

http://www.oecd.org/dac

http://www.plan-uk.org/pdfs/childrenindrr.pdf

http://www.ineesite.org/assets/childernonthefrontline.pdf



http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/40209/1/A_human_security_doctrine_for_Europe%28author%29.pdf

http://www.ceps.eu/files/book/1661.pdf



http://www.unicef.org/crc

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs10.htm

284

United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). “Financial

Tracking Service: Tracking Global Humanitarian Aid Flows.” http://fts.unocha.org.

Accessed: 15 November 2012.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. “Disaster Risk Reduction DRR

Project Portal: Asia-Pacific’s tool for effective DRR planning.”

http://www.drrprojects.net/drrp/drrpp/home. Accessed: 4 April 2013.

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. “UNISDR Terminology for

Disaster Risk Reduction (2009).”

http://preventionweb.net/english/professional/terminology/v.php?id=508. Accessed: 20 May

2011.

http://fts.unocha.org/

